reverse_receipt

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond them — it never says whether a reversal creates a storno document, whether it is irrevocable, or what side effects (stock, numbering, e-invoice reporting) occur, which is exactly the context a mutation tool needs.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but for a destructive financial operation it is under-specified rather than concise. Appropriate sizing would require at least one more clause about consequences or confirmation behavior.

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?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with no output schema, so the description carries real weight for outcome and side-effect disclosure. It provides none of that, leaving the agent unable to predict what reversing actually produces or how failures surface.

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 description coverage is 100%, so receiptNumber, company (with its default-to-current-company note), and includePdf are all documented in the schema. The phrase "by receipt number" merely echoes the required parameter, 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?

The description states a specific verb plus resource ("Reverse a receipt") and identifies the key ("by receipt number"), which clearly separates it from read siblings like get_receipt and from reverse_invoice. It stops short of explicitly differentiating reverse from alternatives such as delete_proforma or creating a correcting receipt.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., receipt must be non-reversed or within a permitted window), and no statement of what to do instead if the goal is a correction rather than a reversal. The agent must infer everything about applicability from the single sentence.

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