create_receipts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a log note is automatically created and linked, and optionally a task. This is good behavioral disclosure. However, it does not mention potential side effects like idempotency, validation rules, or whether receipts can be modified after creation. Still, the provided information is solid for a 4.

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 concise and well-structured. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a bulleted Args section that organizes parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (creating multiple receipts with nested objects and side effects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is very complete. It covers all required and optional parameters, the receipt structure, and automatic behaviors. It lacks only minor details like error conditions, but overall it's sufficient for an AI agent to use 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly describes the `receipts` parameter structure: required fields (channel, logNote, total, invoices) and optional fields (refId, ts, policyId, officeId, payMethod, task). It also explains `agency_id` and `client_id` as HawkSoft identifiers. This provides crucial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Record one or more payments received by a client.' It specifies that each receipt applies to invoices, automatically creates a log note, and optionally creates a follow-up task. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_log_note or create_attachment, which handle different operations.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It implies usage for recording payments, but lacks guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for simple note logging, use create_log_note). Context is clear but no exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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