delivery_notes_storno

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the storno carries negated quantities, is created as a draft, and can be issued separately. It does not detail permissions, idempotency behavior, or what happens if the source note is already a storno, but the annotations already cover the basic safety profile.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the draft/issue behavior. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly complete: it explains the source, effect, and resulting draft state. It could mention edge cases or the absence of an output schema would not matter, but no major gap remains.

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 both uuid and companyId. The description reinforces that the source is an existing issued delivery note but does not add format or selection details beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: create a storno delivery note from an existing issued delivery note, with negated quantities. It is clearly distinguishable from a normal delivery-note creation, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast itself with alternatives such as delivery_notes_create or invoices_bulk_storno.

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?

It implies the usage condition: the source must be an existing issued delivery note, and the result starts as a draft that can be issued separately. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not mention alternatives like delivery_notes_create or batch storno tools.

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