wafeq_credit_notes_create

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the real-world consequence of idempotentHint=false ('calling twice creates two records') and gives the mitigation ('Pass idempotency_key ... to make a retry safe'). This frames the write behavior in terms an agent can act on, going beyond the raw hint flags.

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 short and front-loaded with the WRITE flag, resource type, and endpoint before the prose. The only waste is mild redundancy between 'Create credit note' and 'Endpoint for creating a new credit note', which say the same thing. Otherwise every sentence earns its place, especially the non-idempotency warning.

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 complex create tool with nested line_items, a large currency enum, and a UAE-specific place_of_supply constraint, the schema covers the parameter details thoroughly. The description supplies the essential behavioral layer (write operation, non-idempotency, retry safety). There is no output schema, so return-value behavior is left unspecified, but the core of what an agent needs to call it correctly is present.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and all nested body properties in detail. The description's mention of idempotency_key retry safety echoes what the schema's idempotency_key description already states, adding no new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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 a specific verb and resource — 'Create credit note' / 'Endpoint for creating a new credit note' — and reinforces it with the explicit endpoint 'POST /credit-notes/'. This makes the operation unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like wafeq_credit_notes_update, wafeq_credit_notes_destroy, and wafeq_credit_notes_retrieve without needing to open their schemas.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'create' and the endpoint; there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., wafeq_credit_notes_update for modifying an existing note, wafeq_credit_notes_list for reading). With well over a hundred siblings, some routing guidance would help, but the create-vs-read/vs-update distinction is reasonably self-evident from the name and endpoint.

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