asset_dispose

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so richly: it specifies the atomic single GL journal posting with exact debit/credit flows, the append-only asset_transaction fields, the status flip, forced net_book_value to 0, permanent exclusion from depreciation, asset_update refusal, all error codes, correction path, and idempotency semantics. This goes far beyond any annotation could.

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 long but earned: it uses a clear (a)/(b)/(c) enumeration of the atomic steps, states gain/loss sign, scrap rules, consequences, error codes, correction, and idempotency in organized order. The opening and final 'CONSEQUENCE' sentence overlap slightly, but for a tool with this complexity every sentence carries operational value.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must define the return value, which it does: idempotent replay returns {asset, transaction, journalEntry, gainLossRappen}. It also covers all side effects, failure modes, and post-conditions, making the tool fully callable by an agent without needing additional documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does for the financial core: proceedsRappen sign convention, proceedsAccountId absence for scrap, gainLossAccountId behavior, idempotencyKey replay, and disposalDate's role in period_locked. Notes, reason, and counterpartyName are not explained, but they are peripheral compared to the accounting semantics that the description does add.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Dispose an active or fully_depreciated fixed asset (H06): the TERMINAL financial event (sale, scrap, donation, write-off, retirement).' It distinguishes this from siblings like asset_disposal_preview and asset_disposal_get by emphasizing terminality, so an agent can tell exactly what it does and how it differs without opening the 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?

The description gives clear context: it must be called on active or fully depreciated assets, is terminal, and correction is via reversal of the journal plus a compensating asset_transaction, never an un-dispose. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., asset_disposal_preview) for pre-checking, so no when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is unambiguous.

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