client_invoice_unmark_paid

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core state transition but omits important traits like whether this is reversible, what permissions are needed, or if it affects other records (e.g., payment history). For a mutation tool, this is inadequate.

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?

Single sentence of 10 words, immediately front-loading the action. No redundant phrasing; every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nesting), the description is largely complete. It explains the action clearly. A minor gap is no mention of return value, but the tool's straightforward nature and sibling tools (like client_invoice_show) provide sufficient inferential context.

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% with the 'id' parameter already well-described as 'Client invoice ID (UUID)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline 3 for high 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?

Description uses specific verb 'unmark' and explicit resource 'client invoice paid status', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'client_invoice_mark_paid'. The parenthetical '(transition back to unpaid)' reinforces the exact action.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied by the action (reversal of mark paid), but no mention of prerequisites like invoice must currently be paid, or alternatives like canceling the invoice. Sibling context helps but description could be clearer.

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