delivery_notes_from_proforma

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

The description adds the informative detail that the delivery note is created in draft status, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and there is no coverage of authorization requirements, reversibility, or side effects on the source proforma (e.g., does the proforma get marked as converted?).

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 compact, information-dense sentences with zero redundancy. The behavior, inputs, and output state are clearly summarized efficiently.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover behavioral context. It does state the result (draft delivery note, copied fields), but omits potential edge cases and preconditions (e.g., whether the source proforma must be in a valid state, what happens on repeated calls, relationship to delivery_notes_convert). 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds nothing about the parameters beyond what the schema states. The required proformaId is well-documented in the schema, but the optional companyId (which overrides configured default) is only documented in the schema with no further context about when it would be needed. The description provides no additional parameter insight.

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 the verb (create) and resource (delivery note from proforma invoice), and explicitly enumerates what gets copied (client, lines, dates, currency, notes). It distinguishes itself from the sibling delivery_notes_create by specifying the source is an existing proforma invoice.

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 clearly implies the use case: converting/existing proforma to delivery note. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over delivery_notes_create, nor does it mention prerequisites like whether the proforma must be in a certain status (accepted, issued, draft).

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