add_payment_to_invoice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the prerequisite that the invoice must be 'validated' but does not disclose side effects such as updating invoice status, closing the invoice if fully paid, or any accounting implications. The closepaidinvoices parameter hints at behavior, but the description does not explain it.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no repetition or unnecessary content.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not describe the expected outcome (e.g., payment recorded, invoice status changed, closing behavior), the prerequisites beyond invoice validation, or what the agent should expect in response. This leaves significant gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. It adds a small clarification that the invoice must be validated, but overall the description contributes minimal extra meaning 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's function: 'Enregistrer un paiement (règlement) sur une facture validée' (Record a payment on a validated invoice). The verb 'enregistrer' and the resource 'facture validée' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_payments (viewing) and pay_supplier_invoice (supplier payments).

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 the tool is for recording payments on validated customer invoices, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like pay_supplier_invoice or how it relates to list_payments. There are no exclusions or explicit alternative recommendations, so it only provides implied usage context.

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