Discard prepared invoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Close the current preview' but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., discarding any prepared draft, irreversible action), permissions required, or whether it affects the prepared data. This is a meaningful gap for a mutation-like tool.

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 a single sentence with no waste, directly stating the action and outcome. It is front-loaded with the action verb. It earns a perfect score for 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete: it tells the agent what it does and the outcome. However, as a state-changing operation, it lacks detail on side effects (e.g., whether the preview is closed but the invoice remains as prepared, or if it cancels the entire preparation). The sibling context suggests this is part of a workflow, and without more behavioral info, some critical context is missing 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (effectively, no parameters to explain). The description does not add parameter details but that's not needed; the absence of parameters is well indicated by the empty schema. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-param tools.

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 the specific action ('Close the current preview without issuing an invoice') with a concrete verb and resource (preview/invoice), clearly distinguishing it from issuing or listing invoices. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'arca_prepare_invoice' (which likely opens the preview), so a slight deduction for lack of sibling distinction.

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 when to use it (after preparing an invoice, to cancel the preview) but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. Given the sibling set, an agent might infer to use this instead of 'arca_issue_invoice' if the user decides not to proceed, but explicit guidance is missing.

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