process_purchase_invoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that it returns the Yuki response with a document ID. It does not reveal important side effects like the 'process' flag defaulting to true (immediate finalization), contact creation/linking behavior, or any permissions/error conditions. For a mutating tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 concise with three sentences, each adding value: it states the action, lists accepted inputs, and describes the return value. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler.

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 tool is complex with 14 parameters and nested objects, but the schema covers parameters well. The description explains the return value since there is no output schema. However, it omits important contextual behavior such as the immediate processing/finalization, contact handling when contactCode is provided, and potential side effects. This is adequate 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?

Schema coverage is high (79%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds a high-level grouping ('invoice totals, supplier contact, line items') but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema. It does mention the optional base64 PDF attachment, which is redundant with the schema's documentBase64 description.

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 action ('Book an incoming purchase invoice') and the target resource ('Yuki'). It is distinct from sibling tools like process_sales_invoice by specifying 'purchase invoice.' It also mentions what is accepted and what is returned, fully clarifying the tool'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 description implies usage for booking incoming purchase invoices, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as process_sales_invoice or upload_document. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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