create_sales_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait ('Validates customer credit before posting') and distinguishes conversion from direct creation. However, it does not mention whether the source quotation is consumed/closed, what authorizations are required, or what the tool returns.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, the two parameter modes are stated compactly, and the credit-validation behavior is appended without redundant schema repetition.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the essential call-shape information and a key business rule. It is light on post-conditions and return values, but the schema already documents field semantics, so an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is already strong. The description adds value by grouping parameters into mutually exclusive paths ('Either supply quotationDocEntry ... OR supply cardCode + lines') and providing a real-world scenario ('from a purchase order') that the schema alone does not express.

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?

States a specific action and object ('Create a sales order'), then defines two concrete creation paths: convert an existing quotation or create directly from cardCode + lines. The 'quotation' conversion phrasing clearly separates it from create_sales_quotation and other sibling tools.

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?

Provides unambiguous guidance on when to use each creation mode: quotationDocEntry for converting a quotation, and cardCode + lines for direct creation 'e.g. from a purchase order'. It does not explicitly name alternatives like create_sales_quotation or create_ar_invoice, but the internal mode guidance is clear.

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