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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds useful context beyond them: the action is irreversible, it posts to the ledger, and it derives accounts from the invoice line items. It does not cover duplicate-call behavior or failure modes, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 a single tight sentence with the irreversible warning front-loaded. Every phrase contributes to purpose, prerequisite, or confirmation requirements.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition supplies the critical missing context: irreversibility, ledger posting behavior, prerequisite publish step, and user confirmation gate. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single invoiceId parameter is already documented in the schema as a GUID for the published invoice. The description does not add syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: record/bookkeep a published invoice, then explains the concrete effect of posting it to the ledger using line-item accounts. It clearly distinguishes this terminal bookkeeping action from creation, publishing, and reversal siblings.

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?

It gives an explicit sequencing rule, 'Call after bokio_publish_invoice,' and an explicit confirmation gate, 'only when the user has confirmed.' This tells the agent both when to use the tool and when not to use it.

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