acsept_invoice_request_status

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so description's mention of sending/forwarding aligns with mutation. No additional behavioral info provided (e.g., idempotency, irreversible effects). Description does not contradict annotations.

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?

Single sentence is concise, but the inclusion of Georgian text may reduce clarity for non-Georgian users. The structure is otherwise efficient.

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?

No output schema and missing information about return values, error handling, or constraints. For a mutation tool with destructive hint, more context is needed for safe invocation. Schema coverage is high but description fails to compensate for missing output details.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters (id, seller_un_id) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. Description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states the action ('Send/forward an invoice request to seller') and the resource ('invoice request'). The Georgian text adds context but may be unclear to non-Georgian speakers. The name 'acsept_invoice_request_status' slightly mismatches the action described, causing minor confusion.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like save_invoice_request or del_invoice_request. No prerequisites or conditions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and sibling list.

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