bexio Bills

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true; description adds that delete is permanent and cannot be undone. Also details payload requirements for create/update. No contradiction; provides additional behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Efficiently structured by action with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds specific and necessary information for tool usage. No redundancy or irrelevant details despite the complexity.

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?

Covers all actions, required vs optional parameters, conditional logic, constraints (e.g., character limits, enum values). With high param count and nested objects, the description leaves little ambiguity. No output schema but acceptable given action descriptions suffice.

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 coverage is 100% but description adds value beyond field descriptions by explaining conditional logic (e.g., provide amount_man when manual_amount=true, amount_calc otherwise) and grouping constraints per action. Reduces ambiguity for complex scenarios.

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?

Clearly states it manages purchase bills/supplier invoices (accounts payable, bexio purchase 4.0 API). Specifies resource type and differentiates from sibling tools like bexio_invoices (sales invoices).

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?

Describes each action (list, get, create, update, delete, etc.) and their inputs, but does not explicitly guide when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Implicit context from purpose but no explicit usage guidance.

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