qbo_payments_void

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the record is retained rather than deleted, that amounts are zeroed, and that an attached bank deposit blocks the void. It omits permissions/auth requirements and whether the void is reversible, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action, then the key side effect, then the blocking precondition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, its effect, the token prerequisite, and a blocking dependency. It is nearly complete, missing only auth/permission context and post-void state details.

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 both parameters are already documented (SyncToken includes 'fetch the record first'). The description restates the requirement rather than adding new format or syntax detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Void an existing Payment record') and immediately clarifies what voiding means ('the transaction stays in QuickBooks with amounts set to zero'), which distinguishes it from a delete or the sibling qbo_payments_update. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Provides clear preconditions: 'fetch the record first' to obtain the SyncToken, and 'remove that deposit before QuickBooks will void it' when the payment is in a bank deposit. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., update vs void), so it falls short of a 5, but the when-to-use context is strong.

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