delivery_notes_create

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the record is created in draft status (not issued), a default delivery_note series is auto-assigned when no series is given, and it can later be converted to an invoice. It omits e-Transport-related obligations despite ~15 such params, keeping it below 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and status, then progressively adding context. No filler, though the series-default sentence partially duplicates schema text.

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 41-parameter tool with substantial e-Transport/ANAF compliance fields and no output schema, the description is thin: it never mentions e-Transport requirements or the minimum-one-line rule, relying entirely on the schema. Adequate alongside full schema coverage, but not complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 3. The description's series-default sentence largely restates what seriesId/documentSeriesId already say, and its deputy mention only points at a subset of the 41 parameters; it adds little semantic detail not already in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new delivery note in draft status') and adds conceptual orientation (documents physical delivery, convertible to invoices). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from creation-capable siblings such as delivery_notes_from_proforma or delivery_notes_convert, so it stops 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?

Usage context is implied ('Include deputy information for proof of delivery', default series fallback) but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance, such as when to create a delivery note from scratch instead of via delivery_notes_from_proforma.

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