create_rejections_out

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses several behavioral aspects: it creates a voucher (write operation), warns about the 'EXTRAPOLATED caveat' and godown requirement, and details a specific failure mode for voucherNumber with a workaround. Given the minimal annotations, this carries the burden well, though it doesn't cover all possible side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise at ~3 sentences, starts with the core purpose, and efficiently packs the mirror reference, caveat, and error handling without unnecessary fluff. It's well-structured and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (4 top-level params, nested items), the description covers the purpose, typical use cases, and two key error scenarios (date period and voucher numbering). It doesn't mention preconditions like requiring a set company, but that's implied given the TallyPrime context and sibling tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema; all parameter details are provided in the schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Create a Rejections Out voucher', specifies it records goods being rejected and returned outward, and gives concrete examples (supplier, job worker). The mention of being a 'Mirror of create_rejections_in' helps distinguish it from the sibling tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains when to use it (rejecting goods going out) and includes specific error handling instructions (calling set_period on date errors). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with create_rejections_in or other create tools beyond the mirror reference, so it's clear but not fully explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.