teamleader_invoice_register_payment

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without side effects, idempotency, currency implications, or state changes. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It's appropriately front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal to provide a complete picture. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or the impact on invoice status, making it insufficient for a payment-registration tool.

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?

All four parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. The description itself adds nothing beyond the schema, but that's acceptable given high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Register' and names the resource 'a payment for an invoice', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like teamleader_invoice_send or teamleader_invoice_book.

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 usage context is provided; there's no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It's merely an imperative statement.

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