Create Receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact beyond them: without confirm it only returns a preview, i.e. it is a dry-run switch. It stops short of saying what a confirmed call actually produces or whether re-running creates duplicates, despite idempotentHint=false.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the exclusion and the preview caveat — no filler. The parenthetical about Wint paying you back is slightly chatty but does real explanatory work, and the embedded quote of a Swedish UI label is a little noisy.

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?

This is a 15-parameter, open-world mutation with only 3 required fields and 40% schema coverage; the description covers the purpose, one alternative, and one flag, but leaves the attachment mechanism, field requirements, and post-confirm effects unexplained. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the invocation surface is under-specified for a tool of this size.

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?

With 40% schema description coverage across 15 parameters, the description needs to compensate, but it only touches confirm (the preview behavior). It says nothing about the three required fields (amount, purchase_date, category), the mutually-overlapping attachment options (file_url / file_base64 / upload_ids / file_name), currency default, supplier_name, or how payment_method relates to get_receipt_options.

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 (create/send in) and resource (receipt), and anchors it to the Wint UI action "Lägg till dokument → Kvitto," which pins down exactly what record type results. It separates itself from update_receipt but not from the other upload_* siblings (upload_document, upload_other_document), so an agent still has to infer the family boundaries.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition (something paid with your own money, reimbursed by Wint) and an explicit exclusion with the alternative named: Wint card purchases already have a draft, so use update_receipt instead. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative pattern an agent needs to route correctly.

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