create_purchase_return

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only notes 'Prices in RUBLES', but does not explain the consequences of creating a purchase return (e.g., stock adjustments, document creation, permissions required) or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes the critical currency note. There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly concise.

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?

Despite moderate complexity (nested positions array, 5 parameters), the description is minimal. It lacks context about the business meaning of a purchase return, what happens after creation, return format, and any constraints. The отсутствие output schema further increases the need for description-completeness, which is not met.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, including the currency note in price_rubles. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 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 states the specific action 'Create a purchase return' and clarifies with Russian 'возврат поставщику', indicating a return to supplier. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like create_sales_return (return from customer) and create_purchase_order (purchase).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_sales_return or create_purchase_order. The description does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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