vendor_bill_cancel_vendor_billCancel an open vendor bill so it no longer counts as an open payable. Only OPEN bills can be cancelled; a bill already paid or cancelled cannot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vendorBillId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include destructiveHint: true, and the description adds valuable context by explaining the effect ('no longer counts as an open payable') and the precondition (only OPEN bills). It could further disclose irreversibility or whether the bill record remains, but the current description goes beyond the annotation.
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 two sentences, concise, and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action and effect; the second provides a clear constraint. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 simple destructive tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when it can be used, and the outcome. It could mention whether cancellation is reversible or what happens to the bill record, but such details are not essential given the annotations and schema.
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?
The schema covers the single parameter vendorBillId with 'UUID value wrapper', which is high coverage. The description adds no further parameter-specific information, and the schema description itself is minimal. Without more explanation, the agent must infer the parameter's role from the tool name.
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: 'Cancel an open vendor bill' and its purpose: 'so it no longer counts as an open payable.' It also distinguishes from sibling tools like vendor_bill_mark_vendor_bill_paid by explicitly limiting to open bills and noting paid/cancelled bills are ineligible.
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 clear context for when to use the tool (only for open vendor bills) and explicitly states exclusions ('a bill already paid or cancelled cannot'). It lacks an explicit reference to alternative tools, but the conditions given are sufficient for most use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tool pairs are nearly identical (formation_extract_cap_table / formation_extract_cap_table_ocr; formation_start_formation / formation_create_formation), and several tools lack descriptions, making selection ambiguous. The scale of 202 tools with overlapping summaries (e.g., multiple cap-table summary tools) compounds the confusion.
Dominant snake_case `module_verb_noun` pattern, but with notable deviations: `captable_send_safe_for_signature` uses an inconsistent abbreviation, `check_company_name_availability` lacks a module prefix, and `get_list_` vs `list_` prefixes are mixed. Readable but not fully consistent.
202 tools is far beyond any reasonable surface for a single server, even a broad platform. The sheer number overwhelms and makes tool discovery impractical; many tools are peripheral (ads metrics) to the core formation purpose.
The domain appears well covered: formation flows, cap-table lifecycle (import, close, simulate), accounting (journal entries, periods, schedules), cards, documents, and transactions all have CRUD or lifecycle operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no card deletion, no counterparty creation), but they are unlikely to cause dead ends.