Finalize a credit note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does most of it well: it discloses irreversibility (cannot be edited or deleted), the number-burning side effect, client visibility, and a tier-based quota. It does not cover failure modes (e.g., finalizing an already-finalized note) or auth requirements.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the irreversible consequence, and the quota constraint. No boilerplate or restatement of the title.

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 single-parameter state-transition tool with no annotations and no output schema, this covers the essential agent questions: what it does, what it locks out, and any limits. Missing only error/precondition edge cases and whether the response returns the assigned final number.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds semantics: it clarifies that the input is a draft and that a different final number (CN-YYYY-NNNN) is assigned as a side effect, removing any ambiguity between the draft id and the burned number.

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 names a precise verb and state transition ('Finalize a draft') on a specific resource, and distinguishes it from siblings by describing the resulting frozen document ('cannot be edited or deleted, only rendered and listed'). An agent can separate this from credit_note_update or credit_note_delete without opening any schema.

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 clearly states the precondition (the note must be a draft) and what the alternatives become afterwards (render, list) rather than edit/delete. It even surfaces the free-tier quota of 10 finalized notes as a practical usage constraint. It stops short of explicitly naming credit_note_update or credit_note_delete as the pre-finalization alternatives.

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