Void a vendor bill payment in KikoBooks to reverse its accounting impact while keeping the record. Use it to cancel a payment without deleting the transaction.
Void a bill payment (vendor payment) in KikoBooks. Voiding reverses the payment's accounting impact without physically deleting the record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payment_id | Yes | The Bill Payment ID to void |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the core mutation semantic: voiding reverses the payment's accounting impact rather than deleting the record. It does not cover reversibility of the void, permission requirements, or error conditions, which would be needed for a full 5.
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?
Two tight sentences with the action and its key semantic distinction front-loaded. No filler and no redundancy.
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 single-parameter void tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential semantics (reversal, no deletion). It omits permissions, post-void state, and confirmability, so a minor gap remains, but nothing critical for calling it correctly is missing.
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% for the single payment_id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no parameter-level detail (format, source of the ID), so the baseline of 3 for a schema-covered tool 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 names a specific verb ('Void') and a precise resource ('bill payment (vendor payment) in KikoBooks'). The parenthetical and the distinction from physical deletion make it separable from neighbors like void_bill and delete_statement without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is implied by the contrast with deletion: it signals that this is the tool for reversing a payment while keeping the record. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over delete, void_bill, or reverse_journal_entry, nor any prerequisites. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.