merit_create_gl_batch

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 does disclose the mutation action and key constraints (entryRows structure, date format), but it does not mention the response, side effects, or permissions. This is more transparent than a bare 'create' but still leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, no fluff. The purpose and endpoint are front-loaded, followed by the two most important usage details. Every sentence earns its place.

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 moderate-complexity creation tool with no output schema, the description covers required parameters and formats well. However, it does not explain what the API returns (e.g., batch ID) or what happens on success or failure, which is a notable completeness gap.

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 75%, and the description adds critical meaning to the most complex parameter: entryRows need accountCode plus debit and/or credit. This goes well beyond the vague schema description 'GL lines (required).' It also reinforces the ISO date format for batchDate.

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 and resource: 'Create a Merit Aktiva general-ledger batch,' plus the exact API endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like merit_list_gl_batches and merit_get_gl_batch by focusing on creation.

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 clearly frames this as the tool for creating GL batches and gives the mandatory input shape (entryRows with accountCode and debit/credit). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the create-versus-read distinction among siblings is implicit and sufficient.

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