cancel_invoice

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, implying a state change that is not destructive. The description adds no extra context about reversibility, required invoice status, side effects on payments or reminders, or whether cancellation is permanent.

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 extremely concise: a single clear sentence with no wasted words. While it is under-specified, that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness problem.

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?

Despite the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is too terse to be complete. It fails to clarify the semantics of cancellation versus deletion, any preconditions, or the outcome, leaving the agent unsure about the tool's effects.

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 parameter invoice_id is fully documented in the schema with a description ('the id of the invoice'). The tool description adds no additional meaning, but with 100% schema coverage, 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 the action ('Cancel') and the resource ('an invoice') clearly. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool delete_invoice, leaving ambiguity about whether cancellation is a status change or a deletion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_invoice, update_invoice, or issue_invoice. There are no scenarios, preconditions, or exclusions stated.

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