add_voucher_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It clearly reveals that tax_included=true means price is gross with pretax extracted at posting, and notes have a 4096-byte limit. It doesn't describe authorization requirements, but given no annotations the disclosure of mutating behavior and edge cases (tax handling, size limits) is reasonably strong.

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 organized with a clear intro paragraph followed by a parameter list with examples. It's somewhat verbose but each line adds value — examples for decimal strings and account paths are genuinely useful. The taxtable reference to add_bill_entry avoids repetition. A slight trim of the 'typically a separate expense category' line could tighten it.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description is comprehensive: all parameters documented with types and examples, and even an output schema exists to cover return values. Preconditions (not posted, account type) and edge cases (tax_included, notes byte limit) are addressed. Minor omissions: no mention of error conditions or behavior when voucher_id is invalid, but overall quite complete.

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 fully compensate. It documents all 9 parameters with concrete examples for voucher_id ('000001'), account ('Expenses:Meals & Entertainment'), and decimal-string formats for quantity and price. It adds semantics for taxtable (optional, references add_bill_entry), tax_included (gross vs pretax), notes (max bytes, examples), and action (GnuCash conventions with examples). Only marginal gaps remain around defaults.

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 states 'Add a line item to an employee expense voucher' with a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes context by noting the voucher must not be posted yet and that each entry is typically a separate expense category, which positions it against sibling tools like add_bill_entry and add_invoice_entry.

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 explicitly states when this tool can be used ('The voucher must not be posted yet'), gives a prerequisite condition, and clarifies the account type restriction ('Account must be EXPENSE or ASSET'). It also references add_bill_entry for taxtable semantics, providing cross-tool context.

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