provision_post

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

Adds substantial context beyond idempotentHint/destructiveHint: the exact journal entry generated, the absence of automatic reversal with the legal rationale (OR 960e Abs. 4), idempotency scoped 'per provision', and the `already_posted` error for a mismatched key. The 'CONSEQUENCE' clause makes the irreversible-but-correctable nature of the booking explicit.

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?

Purpose and effect are front-loaded, but the no-automatic-reversal point is stated three times ('No automatic reversal', 'does not release a provision by the calendar', 'it is not released automatically'), and the CONSEQUENCE sentence restates the opening. Tighter phrasing would lose no information.

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?

Behavior is richly covered for a mutation tool, and annotations handle idempotency, but with no output schema the description never indicates what a successful call returns (e.g., entry ID), and the three required parameters remain opaque. The dangling `periodEnd` reference also leaves the agent guessing whether a date must be supplied.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it largely does not: workspaceId and provisionId are never explained, and the description references `periodEnd`, which is not even an input parameter. Only idempotencyKey gets semantic treatment ('Idempotent per provision; a different key on a posted one is `already_posted`').

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?

States a specific verb ('Post') on a specific resource ('drafted Rückstellung') and pins down the accounting effect (Dr expense / Cr provision, source `provision`, dated `periodEnd`). An agent can distinguish it from provision_create, provision_release, and provision_reverse 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?

Explains the lifecycle position clearly: it is for a drafted provision being booked now, with release or a correcting entry happening later, which implicitly routes the agent to provision_release/reverse siblings. It never explicitly names those sibling tools or states when NOT to call this one, so it falls short of a full 5.

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