Mark invoice as sent

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

Annotations already declare the operation non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds important behavioral context beyond them: this records a sent state without triggering any email delivery, which is exactly the side-effect distinction an agent needs.

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 definition is a single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded. Every clause earns its place by clarifying the operation and its key non-email behavior.

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 simple, non-destructive, idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and prevents confusion with email sending. Minor gaps remain around sentAt and sendMethod semantics, but these are mostly handled by the schema.

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 schema has moderate description coverage at 67%, with invoiceId and sentAt documented and sendMethod represented by a self-explanatory enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the schema does most of the work and the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: recording that an invoice was sent. The parenthetical 'no email goes out' distinguishes it from the sibling email-sending tool wave_send_invoice, so an agent can identify the correct operation 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?

It gives clear usage context: this is for invoices sent outside Wave, and it explicitly notes that no email is sent. It does not name wave_send_invoice as the alternative, but the 'outside Wave' condition effectively implies when not to use this tool.

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