invoices_void_invoice

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'void'. It does not explain what voiding means, whether it is reversible, what side effects occur, or what happens to the invoice's status. With annotations present, the description still falls short of disclosing meaningful behavior.

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 (two words), which is efficient but under-specifies. It is front-loaded in the sense that it conveys the core action immediately, but it lacks any elaboration on usage or context. Conciseness is appropriate, but the structure is minimal to the point of being unhelpful.

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 write operation with no output schema, the description does not explain the effects of voiding an invoice, any state changes, or expected outcomes. An agent would not know if the operation is reversible, whether the invoice becomes unmodifiable, or what response to expect. The minimal description is insufficient for reliable 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 input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters, including the required invoiceId and optional altId/altType with defaulting behavior. The description 'Void invoice' adds no parameter-level semantics, so it relies entirely on the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but adds no extra value.

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 'Void invoice' clearly states the action (void) and the resource (invoice), distinguishing it from sibling tools like invoices_delete_invoice and invoices_update_invoice via the specific verb. However, it does not explicitly contrast with those alternatives, so it misses the top score.

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 delete or update. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions mentioned, so an agent cannot determine when voiding is the appropriate operation.

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