delivery_notes_from_proforma

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

Annotations already declare the mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description adds real value beyond that: it enumerates exactly which fields are copied and that the result lands in draft status, so the agent knows nothing is finalized. It omits auth/permission requirements and does not warn that repeat calls produce duplicate delivery notes.

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?

Three tight sentences: action first, then copied fields, then resulting state. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and the most decision-relevant fact (draft status) is not buried.

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 creation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers source, copied content, and initial state. It leaves two relevant gaps: what the call returns (ID vs full object) and whether the source proforma is modified.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already described in the schema; the description only implies the proformaId role and says nothing about companyId or the override behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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') plus the source ('from an existing proforma invoice'), which inherently separates it from delivery_notes_create. It never names the sibling or explains why one path is chosen over the other, so it falls short of fully explicit sibling differentiation.

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 'from an existing proforma invoice' qualifier implies you need a proformaId, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus delivery_notes_create, no mention of proforma_invoices_convert, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., proforma must be accepted/issued). Usage is only inferable.

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