beel_set_recurring_invoice_status

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

Annotations already state not read-only and idempotent. The description adds that COMPLETED cannot be set and explains rejected transitions. It also warns about fiscal guardrails, which is important. No contradiction. It adds value beyond annotations.

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 with bullets and warnings. It is somewhat long but front-loaded with the main purpose. The fiscal guardrail warning is useful but could be trimmed. Overall, it's well-organized.

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?

The description covers statuses, rejected transitions, fiscal guardrails, and points to docs for exhaustive rules. No output schema is present, but the description doesn't need to explain return values. It provides enough context for an agent to call correctly.

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 low (33%), but the description adds semantic meaning for 'status' (explains ACTIVE and PAUSED) and for 'company_id' (explains NIF usage and 403 behavior). The 'recurring_invoice_id' is left to the schema but it's a UUID. The description compensates for the low 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Sets' and resource 'recurring invoice template', and clearly explains the two statuses PAUSED and ACTIVE. It distinguishes COMPLETED as not settable. This clearly communicates the tool's purpose and differentiates from related invoice status tools.

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 description explains that this is for pausing and resuming generation, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it. However, the context is clear from the tool name and the explanation. It mentions rejected transitions, which gives usage context.

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