confirm_purchase_invoiceConfirm and lock a purchase invoice to finalize it without changing approved totals; use a fresh approved preview if totals need correction.
Confirm and lock a purchase invoice without changing approved totals. Totals correction requires a fresh approved preview.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Object ID | |
| plan_handle | No | ||
| recalculate_totals | No | ||
| approved_correction | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.32.1Input schema / properties / plan_handleAdded value: +{
+ "pattern": "^[A-Za-z0-9_-]{43}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.29.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.25.7Input schema / properties / approved_correction / properties / current_gross_price / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / approved_correction / properties / current_gross_price / typeAdded value: +[
+ "number",
+ "null"
+]Input schema / properties / approved_correction / properties / current_vat_price / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / approved_correction / properties / current_vat_price / typeAdded value: +[
+ "number",
+ "null"
+]v0.25.2Input schema / properties / approved_correctionAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "approval_digest": {
+ "pattern": "^[0-9a-f]{64}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "correction_required": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "current_gross_price": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "current_vat_price": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "invoice_id": {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "is_vat_registered": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "proposed_gross_price": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "proposed_vat_price": {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "invoice_id",
+ "is_vat_registered",
+ "current_vat_price",
+ "current_gross_price",
+ "proposed_vat_price",
+ "proposed_gross_price",
+ "correction_required",
+ "approval_digest"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / recalculate_totalsAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.18.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it specifies the invoice is 'locked' (irreversible finalization) and that totals will not be altered, plus the freshness requirement for correction approvals. It still omits what happens on failure or whether a plan_handle must be pre-approved.
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, front-loaded with the action and its key constraint, then the correction prerequisite. Zero filler, though it is arguably terse enough that no signal about the plan_handle/recalculate_totals interaction survives.
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, non-idempotent finalization tool with a complex nested payload and no output schema, the description covers the locking semantics and correction gate but leaves the preview-digest lifecycle, plan_handle role, and recalculate_totals behavior unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 only 25% (just 'Object ID' on id), and the nested approved_correction object has eight required fields documented nowhere. The description partially compensates by tying an 'approved preview' to the approved_correction workflow, but plan_handle and recalculate_totals remain unexplained by either schema or description.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Confirm and lock a purchase invoice') and adds a distinguishing constraint ('without changing approved totals') that separates it from update_purchase_invoice. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but an agent can tell this is the finalization step rather than an edit.
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 second sentence, 'Totals correction requires a fresh approved preview,' implies the prerequisite of running preview_purchase_invoice_totals_correction before confirming a correction, which is genuine routing guidance. However, it never names the preview tool, states when NOT to use this tool (e.g. use update_purchase_invoice for changes), or describes what happens if the digest is stale.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.