Bookkeep Fortnox Invoice

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the irreversible nature of booking and the return of a voucher reference. No contradictions with annotations.

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 compact and efficient: a single purpose sentence, a clear args list, and a returns line. No fluff or redundant 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 simple two-parameter action, the description covers what it does, the critical constraint (irreversibility), and the return value. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites like the invoice existing or being in a bookable state, but the overall clarity is high.

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 100%, and both parameters are well-defined in the schema. The tool description repeats the parameter details without adding extra meaning, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Bookkeep' and resource 'an invoice', and clearly states the outcome: 'creating the accounting entries'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_invoice, cancel_invoice, or approve_supplier_invoice by indicating a final accounting action.

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 this is for finalizing an invoice into the accounting ledger, and the note 'Once booked, the invoice cannot be edited' provides important context about when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude cases like already-booked invoices.

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