Confirm Purchase Invoice

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description says 'lock', implying irreversibility. However, the description claims 'without changing approved totals' while the schema includes recalculate_totals and approved_correction parameters, which could change totals. This potential contradiction and lack of explanation about parameter effects reduce transparency.

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?

Two sentences convey the core action and key constraint with no fluff. The most important information is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 destructive tool with 3 parameters (one nested object) and no output schema, the description fails to explain optional parameters or their behavioral impact. It omits critical details about how to apply corrections or use recalculate_totals, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 low (33%), and the description does not explain any parameter. It mentions 'approved totals' and 'approved preview' but does not link to the approved_correction parameter or clarify recalculate_totals. The description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.

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 'Confirm and lock' and the resource 'purchase invoice'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like confirm_sale_invoice by specifying 'purchase'. It also clarifies what the tool does not do (change approved totals), making its purpose precise.

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 implicitly guides use: use when you want to confirm without changing totals, and hints that totals correction requires a fresh approved preview (likely via a sibling tool). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use, leaving some ambiguity.

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