add_credit_note_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses several important behaviors: the credit-note flag inverts posting/tax-split direction at post time (not entry-add time), prices stay positive, and the slot flag acts as the gate for validating the target is a credit note. It does not mention auth requirements or failure modes, but the core behavioral nuances are well disclosed.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then structures parameter details in a clear Args block. It's somewhat long given the 10 parameters, but each sentence earns its place by adding meaning. Formatting with backticks and line breaks aids 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?

With 10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, this is a complex tool requiring full documentation — and it delivers. It explains the run-time inversion behavior, tax handling, owner-type constraints, and optional disambiguation. The output schema exists, so return-value documentation isn't required. Minor gaps: no explicit prerequisites (e.g., must the credit note exist/unposted?) or error scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 10 parameters — and it does. Every parameter is explained: credit_note_id format, account owner-type rules, owner_type disambiguator, taxtable semantics tied to posting-time inversion, tax_included meaning, notes purpose/limit, and action conventions. Only minor detail is missing on quantity/price decimal-string validation beyond their types.

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 'Add a line item to a credit note' — a specific verb+resource. It explicitly mirrors add_invoice_entry/add_bill_entry while distinguishing itself by the credit-note slot-flag validation, which differentiates it from its closest siblings.

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 names the sibling alternatives (add_invoice_entry / add_bill_entry) and explains when this tool is appropriate vs the non-credit twins. It also gives account-type rules (INCOME for customer, EXPENSE/ASSET for vendor) and owner_type disambiguation guidance — clear context on when to use it and how to configure it correctly.

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