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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false) by disclosing that the target is a 30-day restorable trash, that confirmation is required, that a five-minute confirmation token is returned, and that no change is actually applied. This is exactly the state-machine context an agent needs before sequencing a mutation.

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, all earning their place: purpose first, then constraints, then return/behavior. Zero redundancy and front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return value (exact preview plus a five-minute confirmation token) and the non-applied nature of the call. Nothing an agent needs to sequence this correctly is missing.

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 0%, but the single parameter is a self-describing 'invoice_id' with a defined uuid format. The description adds that exactly one invoice is targeted ('one invoice'), yet provides no additional constraint or format guidance beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and scope: 'Prepare moving one invoice to 30-day restorable trash.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling trash_invoice (which applies the change) without the agent needing to inspect schemas.

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?

States the key exclusion ('Already-pushed or uncertain accounting outcomes must be reviewed on the website') and the prerequisite ('Requires confirmation'), and implies the preview-then-apply flow via the token sentence. It never explicitly names trash_invoice as the follow-up step, which keeps it from a 5.

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