Issue prepared ARCA invoice

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the action is irreversible and forbids automatic retries, which are critical traits for a mutation with financial consequences. It also adds the requirement of explicit user approval, which is not inferable from the schema.

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 three concise sentences with the key fact—irreversible issuance—front-loaded. Every sentence adds operational value, and there is no repetition of schema details or 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?

For a one-parameter irreversible mutation with no output schema, the description provides the essential invocation context: preview, approval, issuance, and retry caution. It does not explicitly explain the origin or format of the approvalToken or possible error states, but the core calling conditions are well covered.

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 has 0% description coverage and only provides the UUID type/pattern for approvalToken. The description adds workflow meaning by tying the token to 'explicit user approval,' but it never states where the token comes from or how it should be obtained. This leaves partial but incomplete compensation for the missing schema 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 opens with 'Irreversibly issue the currently prepared invoice,' a specific verb and resource that uniquely defines the tool. It goes beyond the title by adding the irreversibility qualifier, and it is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as arca_prepare_invoice and arca_discard_prepared_invoice.

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?

It states the exact precondition: 'Call only after showing the preview and receiving explicit user approval.' It also gives a concrete exclusion: 'Never retry automatically after an uncertain response.' However, it does not explicitly route the agent to alternative tools when the precondition is not met.

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