k_invoice

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds context on the specific correction types, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as prerequisites, reversibility, or side effects beyond the annotation.

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 very concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then detail the k_type parameter. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or irrelevant content.

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 the simple parameter set (2 params, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description is mostly complete. It could clarify that this tool is for existing invoices (though inv_id implies it), but overall it provides sufficient context for a correction tool.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds significant value by enumerating the k_type values (1-4) and their meanings, which is not present in the schema. This helps an agent understand the exact correction operation.

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 creates a correction invoice and explains the four correction types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_invoice (new invoice) or delete_invoice_desc (deletion). The verb is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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 usage for correcting invoices via k_type, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like save_invoice or delete_invoice_desc. The sibling set includes many mutation tools, but no guidance is given for choosing this one.

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