invoice_issued_deduct_advance

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 explaining side effects. It only restates the high-level operation and does not disclose whether the deduction is permanent, what it changes on either invoice, or what authorization is required.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical Czech term is helpful for domain users but the unexplained 'ZDD' abbreviation slightly reduces standalone clarity.

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 schema and output schema cover the parameter mechanics, which lowers the burden on the prose. However, for a mutating accounting operation with no annotations, the description omits when to use it and how it differs from adjacent tools such as invoice_issued_deduct_zdd or invoice_issued_link_zdd.

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 100%, so parameter mechanics are already well documented. The description adds useful business context around advance_invoice_id and the target invoice, but does not meaningfully expand on what the schema already provides.

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 states a clear action ('Deduct an advance invoice') and the affected resource ('a tax document invoice'), which goes well beyond a tautology. It does not explicitly name a sibling like invoice_issued_deduct_zdd, so some overlap with related invoice actions remains, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives no indication of when this tool should be used over alternatives, what prerequisites must hold, or what conditions make an advance invoice deductible. With many closely related invoice tools in the sibling list, the agent must rely on the name and schema alone.

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