credit_invoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining effects (e.g., whether it creates a credit note, voids the invoice, or requires special permissions). No information about reversibility or side effects.

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 sentence with no wasted words, and it places the purpose first. While very concise, it could benefit from more structure or additional context without becoming verbose.

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 the tool has two undocumented optional parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output is (despite having an output schema), what 'credit' entails, or how to distinguish between the parameters for selection.

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 0% and the description does not explain the parameters (invoice_code, identifier). The agent has no guidance on which to use, their formats, or how they relate to the target invoice. This is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 credits an existing invoice, using 'reverse' in parentheses for clarity. It specifies the verb and resource, but lacks differentiation from sibling tools like get_credit_invoice or create_invoice, which are distinct operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_invoice, mark_invoice_paid). There is no context about prerequisites, such as the invoice existing or being in a state that allows crediting.

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