create_voucher

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 discloses an important behavioral requirement: the voucher must contain the full set of ledger entries and debits must equal credits, and it references the active company context. However, it does not describe what happens on failure, whether the operation is reversible, permission requirements, or what response the caller should expect after creation.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the core purpose, scope, and key constraint without repetition or filler. The most decision-relevant details are front-loaded: what is created, where, and what input condition must hold.

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 create-oriented tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the essential operational context: active company, voucher types, complete entries, and the balancing rule. The main gaps are the absence of return-value behavior and failure semantics, but these are minor given the schema already defines all inputs and there is no output schema to reconcile.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all six parameters clearly, including voucherType examples, date formats, the meaning of isDebit, and the entries requirement. The description adds only the general balance constraint and active-company context, which does not materially exceed what the schema already conveys.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') with a clear resource ('accounting voucher') and gives concrete examples (Payment, Receipt, Journal, Contra, Sales, Purchase). It also scopes the action to the active Tally company, making it unmistakably distinct from the read-only sibling tools like list_vouchers and get_ledger.

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 makes clear this is the tool for creating vouchers in the active Tally company, and the balance/full-entry requirement signals when the input is valid. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for reading or listing vouchers, but since all siblings are read-only and there are no other creation tools, the usage context is effectively clear.

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