client_invoice_finalize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions state transition and number assignment but omits details like irreversibility, idempotency, or side effects. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a state-changing operation.

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 sentence of 12 words, concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value, with no wasted space.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate but lacks completeness. It should mention the required invoice status (draft) and any behavioral traits like idempotency or permissions.

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 coverage is 100% (1 parameter described in schema). The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'id is a client invoice ID', so it meets the baseline without improvement.

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 clearly specifies the action (finalize), resource (client invoice), and the specific operations (assign number, transition from draft to unpaid). It distinguishes itself well from sibling tools like client_invoice_create or client_invoice_send.

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 phrase 'transition from draft to unpaid' implies the invoice should be in draft status, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites, or restrictions. It barely meets the threshold for implied usage.

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