create_sales_return

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 the currency context ('Prices in RUBLES') but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or response behavior for this 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 sentence, extremely concise and to the point. It includes necessary context (sales return, Russian translation, currency) without wasted words.

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 complexity (multiple required hrefs, nested positions array) and lack of output schema, the description provides minimal context. It lacks information about expected responses or side effects. The complete schema helps, but the description alone is thin.

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 already provides full descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—the currency note is helpful but redundant with the parameter names and descriptions. 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 clearly states the tool's action: creating a sales return (возврат покупателя). The inclusion of the Russian term further clarifies the domain. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_purchase_return by specifying 'sales' return.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The tool's name and description imply usage when creating a sales return, but no exclusions or alternative references are given.

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