change_invoice_status

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so mutation is expected. The description adds status code meanings but doesn't disclose side effects, constraints, or error conditions, providing only moderate behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose. Inclusion of Georgian text adds minor clutter but does not severely impact conciseness. Each sentence serves a purpose.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and two required params, the description explains the status codes adequately but omits what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, error details). This leaves the agent guessing about invocation feedback.

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 schema covers both parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds significant value by mapping numeric status codes to human-readable meanings, which is essential for correct usage since no enums are defined in the schema.

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 changes invoice status and provides a mapping of status codes, which is specific and helpful. It distinguishes from read-only reference tools like ref_invoice_status, though it could be more explicit about not being a creation or deletion tool.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like save_invoice or delete_invoice_desc. The description only lists statuses without explaining usage context or prerequisites.

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