post_invoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral trait that posting is irreversible and that a posted move must be reversed/credited rather than edited, which is valuable context beyond the action itself. It does not cover other side effects or preconditions, but the key risk is conveyed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, no wasted words. The irreversibility caveat is included efficiently.

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?

The description explains the action and a key caveat, but fails to document the single parameter (move_id) and does not state the return value or prerequisites beyond 'draft' status. For a one-param tool with no annotations or output schema, this leaves important 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 description does not mention move_id at all. With schema coverage at 0%, the description provides no compensation, leaving the agent to infer that move_id refers to the invoice/bill ID from the name and context.

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 clearly states the verb 'Post (confirm)' and the resource 'draft invoice/vendor bill', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_invoice or post_journal_entry. It also notes irreversibility, reinforcing the action's purpose.

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 phrase 'draft invoice/vendor bill' provides clear context for when to use this tool—when a draft invoice or vendor bill needs to be confirmed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it lacks a formal when-not-to-use statement.

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