submit_lifecycle_status

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: mandatory statuses (Refused and Cashed to PPF) and conditional requirement for reason on Refused and Disputed. It implies a write operation but doesn't discuss side effects or reversibility.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and list of statuses, with no wasted words.

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 status emission tool with an output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects like mandatory transmissions and conditional reason, though it could briefly mention payment parameters for completeness.

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 100%; the description adds value by reinforcing mandatory transmission for Refused and Cashed and conditional requirement for reason. However, it doesn't add extra context for payment_date and payment_amount beyond the schema.

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 states the tool emits a processing status on a received invoice and lists all possible status codes, distinguishing it from siblings like submit_flow which handles initial invoice submission.

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 explicitly lists when to use the tool (to emit statuses) and highlights mandatory transmissions and conditional requirements for reason, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives.

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