Attach an invoice to an order by providing invoice number, optional URL, and provider.
Attach an invoice (number, optional URL and provider) to an order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| number | No | Invoice number | |
| orderId | No | ||
| provider | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.73.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write/association behavior ('attach') but does not explain whether this creates a new invoice entity, overwrites an existing invoice, is idempotent, or what happens on success or failure. The optionality of URL and provider is helpful, but core mutation semantics remain unclear.
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 filler. Every phrase contributes meaningful domain context: the object (invoice), the target (order), and the optional fields (URL and provider).
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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is underspecified. It does not state what the tool returns, how required parameters should be determined, or what side effects 'attach' has on the order. The core purpose is clear, but an agent is left guessing on important invocation details.
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 only 25%, but the description compensates by mapping 'number', 'optional URL and provider', and 'to an order' to the four parameters. It adds optionality information not present in the schema, though it does not define allowed provider values or clarify whether orderId is effectively required despite the schema listing no required parameters.
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 states a specific action and resource: 'Attach an invoice ... to an order.' This clearly differentiates it from related order operations like record_order_payment by focusing on invoices rather than payments or status changes.
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 intended use is implied by the action itself, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as record_order_payment, update_order_details, or mark_order_paid. There is no when-not-to-use or alternative recommendation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.