Mark payment voucher paid

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotency. The description adds context beyond annotations by detailing side effects: posting spend to monthly/shipment budget items and refreshing requisition status. It does not contradict 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 a single sentence of 20 words, front-loading the main action. It is efficient but could include brief parameter explanations without becoming verbose.

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 output schema and 4 parameters (including boolean flags dryRun and confirm), the description lacks essential details like return value, required actorId role, and the effect of dryRun/confirm. The agent cannot confidently invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the purpose of any parameter (voucherId, actorId, dryRun, confirm). For a mutation tool, the role of dryRun and confirm is critical but missing, leaving ambiguity.

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 verb 'mark', the resource 'payment voucher', and the status 'paid'. It also specifies side effects: posting to budget items and refreshing requisition status. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'limu_review_payment_voucher' (review/approve) and 'limu_get_payment_voucher' (read).

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 voucher is 'management-approved' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'limu_review_payment_voucher' (prerequisite) or how to handle errors. No exclusions or when-not-to guidance is provided.

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