add_supplier_invoice_line

Does 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 only says 'Add a line' and adds no information about side effects (e.g., whether the invoice totals are recalculated), error conditions, required permissions, or reversibility. This is a mutation tool with zero behavioral detail.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It merely restates the tool name in French and does not provide any additional valuable content, making it too short to be useful.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is severely incomplete. It omits prerequisites, return values, error scenarios, and any behavioral context, leaving the agent without essential information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%. The description does not mention any parameters or explain their meaning. It provides no compensation for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the agent to infer semantics solely from parameter names like 'id', 'subprice', 'qty', and 'tva_tx'.

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: adding a line to a supplier invoice. It uses a specific verb ('Ajouter') and resource ('ligne à une facture fournisseur'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like add_invoice_line (customer invoice) and add_supplier_order_line (supplier order) by specifying 'fournisseur' and 'facture'.

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 usage for supplier invoices but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the invoice needing to be in draft status or the need for existing invoice id. Usage context is clear but not elaborated.

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