merit_send_recurring_indication_values

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful non-obvious behavior: each value may set endValue or quantity, quantity takes precedence, and address or customerId is also allowed. However, it does not disclose write side effects, whether the operation is idempotent, error behavior, or response format.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the action and target resource, then packs in the API endpoint and the most important parameter semantics. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The description is useful but not fully complete for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. It explains the main value fields, but does not specify required combinations inside each value object, the meaning of address vs customerId, validation constraints, or what the response contains.

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?

Even though schema description coverage is 100%, the schema only says 'Article code' and 'Indication readings (required)'. The description adds real meaning by clarifying that artCode is the article, and by exposing the inner fields of each value object (endValue, quantity, address, customerId) and the precedence rule between quantity and endValue.

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 action ('Send') and resource ('meter / indication values for recurring invoices'), and includes the direct API endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, get, or create recurring invoices, and from other 'send' tools like merit_send_prices or merit_send_discounts.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need to submit meter/indication values for recurring invoices. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for viewing/creating recurring invoices, so an agent must infer the selection rather than being told.

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