invoice_issued_cash_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and payment type; it does not disclose side effects such as creating a cash document, updating the invoice's paid status, posting to a cash register, or any permission requirements. For a financial mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and includes the localized term 'Hotovostni uhrada' for additional clarity. There is no redundant or filler 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?

The output schema and parameter schema are present and complete, so return values and parameters are covered elsewhere. However, the description does not explain the operational context, prerequisites, or consequences of recording a cash payment, and it does not help the agent choose among the many payment-related sibling tools. For a financial mutation, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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 already describes all four parameters, including the optional extra_fields payment properties, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how parameters relate to the cash payment behavior, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Pay'), the resource ('an issued invoice'), and the payment method ('in cash'), so an agent can understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling payment tools like invoice_issued_match_payment or invoice_issued_deduct_advance, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Pay an issued invoice in cash' gives clear context for when to invoke this tool: when a cash payment needs to be recorded against an issued invoice. It does not, however, state when not to use it or mention alternative payment-related tools, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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