pay_supplier_invoice

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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that a payment is recorded, but does not disclose whether the invoice status changes, how partial payments are handled, whether the payment is posted to accounting, or any side effects. This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and object. However, given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than effective structure, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the tool is incomplete for practical use. The agent cannot infer the return value, the effect on the invoice, validation rules, or whether this tool is appropriate for the current context (e.g., customer vs supplier). It lacks essential context for a payment-recording operation.

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%, meaning the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It fails to do so; it only refers generally to a payment on a supplier invoice without clarifying fields like 'datepaye', 'payment_mode_id', or 'accountid'. The description adds no value beyond the raw parameter names in 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 action 'Enregistrer un paiement' (record a payment) and the resource 'facture fournisseur' (supplier invoice). It is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'add_payment_to_invoice' (which likely operates on customer invoices), so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, nor any conditions under which this tool should be preferred over similar payment recording tools. The agent receives no contextual help for tool selection.

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