ksef_attach_field_provenance

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

The description explicitly states 'require confirmation,' which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (which only indicate it's not read-only, destructive, idempotent, or open-world). This alerts the agent that user interaction may be needed. However, it does not detail what happens on confirmation or failure.

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 concise sentence that includes a key behavioral note. No unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly restructured to front-load the main purpose more clearly.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks sufficient context for a complex operation with 6 required params. It does not explain the confirmation process, how the draft is modified, error scenarios, or the relationship to source documents. The agent will likely need to consult additional documentation.

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?

There are 6 required parameters with zero schema description coverage. The description provides no explanation of their meanings, types, or expected formats (e.g., 'field_path' could be a JSON path, 'confidence' might be a 0-1 range). The agent must rely entirely on parameter names, which may be ambiguous.

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 the action ('attach'), the resource ('source-backed field provenance to a draft'), and a behavioral detail ('require confirmation'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other aspects of invoice drafts, such as validation or update.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical workflow context (e.g., after extraction), or situations where this tool is not appropriate.

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