Confirm Sale Invoice

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the concrete effect ('Locks the invoice for editing') and reversibility via invalidate_sale_invoice, which tempers the destructive hint into a recoverable state change.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded ahead of effect and reversal. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter mutation with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers the action, its state effect, and the undo path. It stops short of prerequisites or response behavior, but the essential information for correct invocation is present.

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?

Only one parameter (id), documented at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the identifier, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Confirm a sales invoice') that an agent can distinguish from siblings like confirm_journal or confirm_purchase_invoice by resource. It does not explicitly call out those siblings, but the resource specificity carries the differentiation.

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 names the inverse operation ('Reversible via invalidate_sale_invoice'), which signals the undo path, but gives no explicit when-to-use condition, prerequisites (e.g. invoice must be in draft), or when not to confirm. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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