Publishes a draft invoice, converting it into a normal invoice; requires draft invoices enabled, and cannot publish refund drafts.
Publish a draft invoice so it becomes a normal invoice. Needs draft invoices turned on for the account (404 otherwise). Refunds cannot be drafts, so Syncro refuses to publish them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Draft invoice ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.0Does 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 the account-level prerequisite, the failure mode (404 when drafts are off), and an explicit refusal case for refunds. It omits what happens to line items/links after publishing and whether the operation is reversible, which would round it out.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the prerequisites and exclusions. Nothing is repeated from the schema and 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 one-parameter state-transition tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential preconditions and failure modes. It could say more about post-publish effects (what 'normal invoice' entails, reversibility), but nothing required to call it correctly is missing.
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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Draft invoice ID'. The description reinforces that only drafts are valid input but adds no format, type, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource and names the exact state transition: 'Publish a draft invoice so it becomes a normal invoice.' An agent can immediately distinguish this from the inverse sibling invoices_convert_to_draft without opening either 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?
Gives clear usage context: a draft must exist, the account must have draft invoices enabled, and refunds are excluded because Syncro refuses them. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with invoices_convert_to_draft, but the when-not cases are unusually concrete for a short description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.