bexio Document Comments

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations, such as the immutability of comments (no edit/delete) and the effect of is_public on comment visibility. Annotations already indicate not read-only and not destructive, which is consistent.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, actions, and key constraints without extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the resource type and action summary.

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?

The description covers all actions, required parameters, and constraints, but does not describe the return format or content of list/get responses. Since there is no output schema, this omission slightly reduces completeness for an agent.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description goes further by grouping parameters per action (e.g., limit/offset for list, comment_id for get, payload fields for create) and explaining the purpose of is_public. This adds context beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as managing comments on specific sales documents (quotes, orders, invoices) and lists the three actions (list, get, create). It distinguishes itself from general notes by specifying the document types and action constraints.

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 clear usage context by stating that all actions require document_type and document_id, and explicitly notes that comments cannot be edited or deleted via the API. However, it does not mention alternative tools or when to prefer this tool over siblings like bexio_notes.

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