revert_issue_invoice

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

The description reveals the core state transition (issued → draft) but adds no further behavioral context. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., impact on payments, invoice numbering, or reminders), but given the simplicity and existing annotation coverage, this is acceptable though not rich.

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 concise sentence that directly states the function with no filler or unnecessary information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema) and annotations are present, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks contextual guidance about when to revert an issued invoice vs using cancellation or other invoice-related actions, which is relevant given the large sibling set. It is not incomplete to the point of confusion but has clear gaps.

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 input schema has full coverage of the sole parameter (invoice_id), including a clear description. The tool description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 'Sets issued invoice to draft' uses a specific verb ('sets'), names the resource ('issued invoice'), and specifies the resulting state ('draft'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like issue_invoice (which presumably does the opposite) and cancel_invoice (which implies a different outcome).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cancel_invoice, update_invoice, or mark_as_sent_invoice. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or situations where this tool should be avoided.

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