beel_set_invoice_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant context: the state machine, irreversibility of issuing, and the fact that SENT can be undone but ISSUED cannot. No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches behavioral understanding beyond the structured hints.

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 structured logically: purpose, transitions, exclusions, endpoint, guardrails, and pointers to docs. It is not overly terse but each sentence serves a function, and the front-loaded purpose ensures relevance. A minor deduction for length, though none of it is fluff.

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 complexity (state machine, fiscal constraints), no output schema, and a rich annotation set, the description covers all essential elements: allowed transitions, rejection behavior, separation of fiscal acts, and pointers to detailed guardrails and docs. An agent can invoke this tool correctly and understand its boundaries.

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 67%, and the schema itself provides detailed parameter semantics (status transitions, sent_at, payment_date, payment_method). The tool description adds behavioral context (e.g., rejection rules) but does not introduce new parameter-level meaning. This meets the baseline for decent schema coverage; the description complements rather than compensates.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Sets the commercial status of an invoice') and immediately enumerates the exact allowed transitions, distinguishing this tool from fiscal operations like issuing and voiding. It explicitly names sibling tools (beel_issue_invoice, beel_void_invoice) by their purpose, making selection unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states valid transitions and that 'any other transition is rejected.' It clarifies that issuing/voiding are not handled here and points to fiscal guardrails and exhaustive documentation. It also gives the endpoint, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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