create_invoice_in

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions that prices are in RUBLES, which is a behavioral detail already present in the schema. It does not disclose any side effects, permissions required, return value, or whether the operation is reversible. As a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences front-loading the main purpose. However, the second sentence 'Prices in RUBLES' is redundant with the schema, so it doesn't fully earn its place. Still, it's well-structured and quick to read.

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 create operation with no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what happens after creation (e.g., return value, confirmation), nor does it provide context on how this differs from related tools. The parameter schema is complete, but the overall description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 every parameter is described in the schema. The description 'Prices in RUBLES' adds no new information beyond the schema's note on price_rubles. Thus, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Create a supplier invoice (счёт поставщика)'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical clarifies the Russian term. The currency note 'Prices in RUBLES' adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from similar tools like create_invoice_out or create_purchase_order, though the tool name suggests the distinction.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. For example, there's no mention that this is for supplier invoices as opposed to customer invoices (create_invoice_out) or purchase orders (create_purchase_order).

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