brc_create_cash_receipt

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the confirmation workflow, default values for entryDate/procDate, conditional sending of VAT rate fields, and the requirement for explicit counterparty confirmation. This is highly transparent.

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 a single paragraph but front-loads the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: creation, dual input, defaults, conditional behavior, workflow steps. It is not overly verbose, though a bulleted list could improve readability.

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 high parameter count (30), nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow and key behaviors. However, it does not explain return values (e.g., the preview object) or required fields beyond companyName. The agent might struggle to construct a valid request without additional context for many parameters.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 10% (3 out of 30 parameters have descriptions). The description adds meaning for key parameters like confirmWrite and confirmCounterpartyExplicit, explaining their roles in the workflow, and notes default dates and conditional VAT fields. However, many parameters (e.g., total, acCode, note) remain unexplained, so the description only partially compensates for the low coverage.

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 'Creates a BRC cash receipt,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes this creation tool from other create_ and batch tools by focusing on a singular cash receipt and mentioning the dual input method (raw payload or flat fields).

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?

The description provides explicit instructions on the two-step workflow: first call without confirmWrite to get a preview, then retry with confirmWrite after user confirmation. It also specifies that confirmCounterpartyExplicit is required after explicit user confirmation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like brc_batch_cash_receipts for batch operations.

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