teamleader_invoices_register_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., invoice status changes), prerequisites, idempotency, or response format. This is insufficient for a financial mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it appropriately concise.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the effect on the invoice, required invoice state, and any return value, especially since this is a financial action. The current description is too minimal to be considered complete.

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%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline 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?

The description 'Register a payment against an invoice' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling invoice tools like teamleader_invoices_book or teamleader_invoices_send. It unambiguously states the tool's action and target.

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 implies usage for registering payments but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools. The context is clear but under-specified.

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