attach_contract_to_cash_invoice_issued

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already signal a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds only a terse precondition about invoice-issued custody and says nothing about what state changes occur, what 'advancing' entails, or error behavior when the precondition isn't met. It doesn't contradict the annotations but adds minimal behavioral context.

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?

Eight words with zero waste, but this is under-specification masquerading as conciseness. There is no front-loaded action statement; the entire description is an opaque precondition that forces the agent to parse domain jargon before it can even identify the operation.

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?

This is a 4-required-param mutation tool inside a multi-stage contract-to-cash workflow with several closely related siblings. The description must explain the run lifecycle, define 'reconciled invoice-issued custody,' and distinguish this step from attach_contract_to_cash_cash_collected—none of which is present. The output schema's existence doesn't rescue the missing operational context.

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%, so the description carries the burden for explaining company_ref, project_ref, run_ref, and the nested request.record_id—but it mentions none of them. The schema's self-explanatory field names and the uuid format are all an agent has to go on; no parameter's meaning or relationship to the custody precondition is disclosed.

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 never states the actual operation—attaching a contract to a cash-invoice-issued record. It substitutes the cryptic verb 'Advance' plus a jargon precondition ('exact reconciled invoice-issued custody') that doesn't map to standard contract-to-cash terminology. The only clue to purpose is the tool name itself, making this effectively a tautology for an agent that must infer the action from the identifier.

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 'only from' phrasing implies a state-gating condition (only proceed when the invoice-issued custody is exactly reconciled), which is a weak form of when-to-use guidance. It never names sibling alternatives such as attach_contract_to_cash_cash_collected or cancel_contract_to_cash_before_invoice, nor explains where this step fits in the contract-to-cash run lifecycle.

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