delivery_notes_convert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose key side effects: creates a new invoice, marks the delivery note as converted, and establishes a link. It also states return value. However, it doesn't disclose whether the operation is reversible, whether conversion is idempotent (can it be called twice?), or whether this is a final/irreversible state change for the delivery note. For a mutation-style conversion with notable side effects, this is a meaningful gap even if the primary behaviors are covered.

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 two sentences: the first summarizes the action and its effects; the second states the return value. Zero wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose, and all sentences earn their place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must carry more weight. It explains the core workflow and return value but lacks detail on edge cases: what happens if the invoice series is invalid, whether data can be customized during conversion beyond date overrides, and the irreversibility or state implications of marking a delivery note as converted. For a 5-parameter mutation tool with side effects, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level insight beyond what the schema provides—the defaults for dueDate and issueDate are already stated in the schema. Since the schema fully covers all parameters, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't add incremental value.

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 a specific verb ('Convert') + resource ('delivery note into a final invoice'). It enumerates the concrete effects: creates a new invoice, marks the delivery note as converted, and establishes a link between documents. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling conversion tools like receipts_convert_to_invoice and proforma_invoices_convert by naming the specific document type and workflow.

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 vs. alternatives like delivery_notes_bulk_convert, proforma_invoices_convert, or receipts_convert_to_invoice. It doesn't mention exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., delivery note must not already be converted). The usage context is implied by the name and description rather than explicitly stated.

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