Create document draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool creates a draft and returns a confirmation, but omits important details such as side effects (e.g., does it require authentication? Are there rate limits? What happens on duplicate?), which are critical for safe invocation.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action. However, it is too brief for a tool with 12 parameters and no other documentation, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity. A slightly expanded description would be more valuable.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain what the draft document consists of, how to use parameters, or what the confirmation payload contains, making it difficult for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 should compensate by explaining parameter meanings. The description does not mention any of the 12 parameters (e.g., 'kind' as an enum, 'partner_id' as required, or 'items' as an array of line items), leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names, which is insufficient.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'draft accounting document', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'post_document' (which finalizes) and 'update_document_header' (which modifies an existing document). The mention of returning a short confirmation payload further specifies the tool's output.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., partner_id must exist), nor does it explain that this creates a draft (not a final document) or that other tools should be used for posting or updating.

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