void_invoice

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

Description adds value beyond the destructiveHint annotation by noting irreversibility and the need for user confirmation. It also adds the constraint 'Solo facturas Verifactu', which is not in annotations. No contradiction.

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 extremely concise yet packed with essential information: action, scope, irreversibility, and confirmation requirement. Every element is justified and front-loaded.

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 single-parameter destructive action, the description covers the key aspects (what, irreversible, scope, confirmation). No mention of return value, but an output schema exists. Slightly incomplete for a fully self-contained description.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the invoice_id parameter or provide any additional context. While the parameter is simple, the description should clarify its role (e.g., the ID of the invoice to void).

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 explicitly states the action ('anula factura'), the scope ('Verifactu'), and the irreversibility. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_invoice by emphasizing this is a specific Verifactu void operation.

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 specifies that it only applies to Verifactu invoices and advises confirmation with the user. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., delete_invoice) or state when not to use it beyond the invoice type constraint.

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