ghl_void_invoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the action (void/cancel) but does not mention whether the operation is reversible, permanent, requires special permissions, or affects invoice status. For a destructive operation, this lacks critical transparency.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence: 'Void (cancel) an invoice.' Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy 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?

Given that this is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It states the basic purpose but omits side effects, prerequisites, reversibility, and any usage context, leaving the agent undersupplied for safe 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 input schema has one parameter, invoiceId, with no descriptions (0% schema coverage). The tool description does not mention or explain this parameter, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the parameter name alone. It does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Void (cancel) an invoice' uses a specific action verb ('void') and identifies the resource ('invoice'). It clarifies the meaning with 'cancel' and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling invoice tools like get, create, send, and record payment.

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 use when an invoice needs to be voided or canceled, but it provides no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, so guidance is only implied.

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