Recalculate a draft declaration by repopulating its data from current invoices; works only on declarations in draft status.
Recalculate a draft declaration by re-populating its data from current invoices. Only works on declarations in "draft" status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Declaration UUID to recalculate | |
| companyId | No | Company UUID (overrides STORNO_COMPANY_ID env var) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the crucial detail that the operation overwrites the draft's data from current invoices, which implies manual edits can be lost. It does not state what happens when the declaration is not in draft (error vs no-op) or what the response contains.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, followed immediately by the constraint. Nothing redundant or padded.
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 two-parameter mutation with annotations covering safety and idempotency and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly. The main remaining gap is failure behavior on non-draft declarations and whether the recalculation is a full replace of draft contents.
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%, and both parameters (id, companyId) are documented in the schema, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no meaning beyond it — it does not explain the companyId env-var override semantics or UUID expectations.
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 verb (recalculate) and resource (draft declaration) plus the mechanism (re-populating data from current invoices), which meaningfully separates it from siblings like declarations_sync or declarations_refresh_statuses. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of the top score.
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 precondition "Only works on declarations in 'draft' status" is an explicit when-not rule that prevents wasted calls. However, with many adjacent declaration tools (declarations_sync, declarations_prepare, declarations_validate), no alternative is named for declarations in other statuses or for different refresh semantics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.