Confirm Purchase Invoice

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

Annotations indicate destructive write operation. The description adds that it automatically fixes vat_price/gross_price inconsistencies, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not clarify what 'lock' entails regarding reversibility.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes an important side effect. No superfluous 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?

The tool has low complexity (one parameter, no output schema). The description covers the core action and auto-fix behavior but omits details about locking implications and return value. Adequate but slightly incomplete.

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 coverage is 100% with a description for the id parameter. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, justifying a baseline score of 3.

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 confirms and locks a purchase invoice, and specifically mentions auto-fixing price fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like confirm_journal, confirm_sale_invoice, and invalidate_purchase_invoice.

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 confirming a purchase invoice but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like invalidate_purchase_invoice, or mention prerequisites such as invoice state.

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