mf_create_delivery_slip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and delivers crucial behavioral information: it explicitly states the tool is non-functional ('機能しません'), explains why (v3 API doesn't support the endpoint), and provides workaround guidance. This goes well beyond what a typical description would cover, addressing operational status and limitations.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the intended function, the second explains the current limitation and alternative. No wasted words, though the technical detail about v3 API could be slightly more front-loaded for immediate clarity.

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 the tool's non-functional status, the description provides complete contextual information: it explains what the tool would do if functional, why it doesn't work, and what to do instead. With no output schema and no annotations, this description adequately covers the essential context an agent needs to understand this tool's special situation.

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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose: '見積書から納品書を作成します' (creates a delivery slip from a quote). It specifies the resource (delivery slip) and source (quote), but doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like mf_convert_quote_to_billing or mf_create_billing_from_quote beyond mentioning it's for delivery slips specifically.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it states the tool is currently non-functional due to v3 API limitations ('このツールは機能しません'), specifies when NOT to use it (for v3 API), and provides an alternative action ('納品書はマネーフォワードのWebUIから作成してください'). This is comprehensive guidance for both usage and alternatives.

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