invoices_record_invoice

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds that it is a 'manual payment', providing slight context. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether the invoice status changes, or if any confirmation is generated, relying solely on the annotation to convey 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?

One short sentence with no waste, and the action is front-loaded. While it is very brief, it is appropriately concise for a tool description, though it could arguably benefit from a bit more detail without losing conciseness.

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 11 parameters and nested objects, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return behavior (though no output schema exists), prerequisites, or typical usage flow. An agent would have to rely entirely on the schema, and even then, the description doesn't clarify the purpose of each field or how they interact, leaving it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 description does not reference any parameters; the schema already covers 73% of parameters with descriptions. Since coverage is only moderate, the description could have added guidance on required parameters like invoiceId and mode, but it is completely silent on them, providing no additional value over 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 states a specific action ('Record a manual payment') on a specific resource ('an invoice'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like invoices_create_invoice (which creates an invoice) and payments_record_order_payment (which records order payments), leaving little ambiguity about what this tool does.

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. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the name alone, which is insufficient given the large set of invoice-related tools.

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