delivery_notes_bulk_convert

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutating nature is known; the description adds the real value of what happens (one combined invoice created, all source notes marked invoiced). It stops short of describing partial-failure or reversibility behavior for a non-idempotent bulk mutation.

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 dense sentences: the action/result first, then the constraints and side effects. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 non-idempotent bulk mutation with no output schema, the description covers preconditions and resulting state changes, which is most of what an agent needs. Missing is what happens if some notes fail validation or whether the operation is atomic.

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%, with `ids` and `companyId` fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the ids array, ordering, or the company override, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource — converting multiple delivery notes into one invoice — and the word 'multiple' plus 'single invoice' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling single-note `delivery_notes_convert`. It does not name that sibling explicitly, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions for use: all notes must be issued, share the same client, and share the same currency. It never states exclusions or names the single-note alternative, so the agent must infer when to pick one over the other.

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