folio_prepare_invoice_assignment

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it copies the invoice into a private local folder that persists until manual cleanup, performs no upload, and gates the next stage on a 10-minute human approval window. The mutation-is-local-until-approved framing is exactly what an agent needs for a non-readOnly, non-idempotent tool; only error/rollback behavior is unspecified.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the critical "Laster IKKE opp" negation comes early. Slight terseness in the Norwegian telegraphic phrasing, but no filler.

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?

Behavioral flow and constraints are well covered even without an output schema, but for a two-required-parameter tool with zero schema documentation the description leaves the agent guessing about parameter formats and what the "preview" actually contains.

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%, so the description must explain event_id and file_path, but it only alludes to them ("eksakt fakturafil", "Folio-hendelse") without giving ID format, path expectations (absolute? relative?), or whether the file must already exist.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: build a local preview for an exact invoice file plus a Folio event, and explicitly says it does not upload. That contrasts implicitly with folio_attach_invoice, but the sibling is never named, so the agent must infer the split.

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?

Describes the workflow after the call (human Terminal approval valid 10 minutes) and rules out uploading, which implies this is a pre-step before folio_attach_invoice. However, it never states when to choose this versus the actual attach tool or what happens if approval is not given.

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