pennylane_mark_customer_invoice_paid

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety/idempotency profile is covered. The description adds only the eligibility constraint ('finalisée'); it says nothing about what happens on an already-paid or non-finalized invoice, or whether a payment date is recorded.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action and the key constraint; 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?

An output schema and rich annotations exist, so return values and safety need not be restated. What is missing is error/precondition behavior (what an agent sees if the invoice is not finalized or already paid) and whether the operation touches payment fields beyond status.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'id' as the invoice identifier to mark paid. The description adds no extra semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Marque ... comme payée') and specific resource ('facture client'), with the added constraint that the invoice must be finalized. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-siblings such as pennylane_finalize_customer_invoice or pennylane_update_supplier_invoice_payment_status.

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?

'finalisée' implies a precondition on which invoices are eligible, so an agent can infer when this applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to alternatives such as finalize_customer_invoice or the supplier counterpart.

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