marquer_facture_payee

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

The description discloses the required permission (payments:write) and explains the meaning of an empty montant (full payment) versus a filled one (partial), adding behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, or error handling for already-paid invoices.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action first, followed by concise and relevant parameter detail. There is no extraneous information, and every phrase adds value.

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 simple mutation tool, the description covers the primary action, required permission, and parameter semantics. It lacks details on return values or possible errors, but the tool is straightforward and no output schema is present, so this is reasonably complete.

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 adds meaning to the `montant` parameter by specifying its textual format (e.g., '500.00') and the distinction between empty (total balance) and non-empty (partial payment), which the schema does not convey. The `facture_id` parameter is not explained, but its purpose is evident from its name and the tool's function.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Marque') and resource ('une facture payée'), making its purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'factures_impayees' which lists unpaid invoices, whereas this tool performs the action of marking one as paid.

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 the tool is used to mark an invoice as paid and explains partial payment behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or offer any exclusion criteria. The context is clear but not formalized.

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