timeiq_invoice_mark_paid

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks details on side effects, reversibility, or authorization requirements. It only states the action without explaining the resulting system state or any constraints.

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, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. While front-loaded with the action, it doesn't earn its place as it omits critical information beyond the core 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 simple tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description should provide more context about the effect of marking paid, any irreversible consequences, or expected behaviors. It is incomplete.

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 description does not clarify the parameters. The 'id' parameter is not explained (presumably invoice ID), and the 'dry_run' parameter's purpose is missing. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, but it fails to do so.

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's action: marking an invoice as fully paid. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'timeiq_invoice_mark_unpaid' and 'timeiq_invoice_mark_written_off' by specifying the exact status change.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the invoice needing to be unpaid, or scenarios where marking as paid is appropriate versus marking as written off.

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