merit_create_purchase_invoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses immediate document creation, GL entry, booked state, and approval-flow bypass. It does not cover response shape, reversibility, or auth requirements, but the essential side effects are clearly stated.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, no filler. It efficiently packs purpose, behavioral caveats, and critical parameter semantics.

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 complex financial mutation with 13 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the high-level workflow but omits essential structure for invoiceRows and taxAmount, which an agent must understand to invoke the tool correctly. More detail on required row fields and response behavior is needed.

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 only 31%, and the description adds some meaning by noting vendor can be an existing Id or new record and that totalAmount is ex-VAT. However, it provides no structure for the required invoiceRows and taxAmount arrays, which are opaque objects in the schema, and it leaves several auxiliary fields unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a booked Merit Aktiva purchase invoice' via a named endpoint. It also distinguishes the tool by emphasizing immediate GL entry and booked state, which separates it from sales invoice or purchase invoice payment tools.

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 explicitly says this tool bypasses the approval flow and names sendpurchorder as the alternative for approval-based workflows. It also clarifies vendor handling (existing Id or new record). It lacks direct contrast with sibling purchase-invoice tools like listing or payment tools, but the core usage context is clear.

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