Invalidate Sale Invoice

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

Annotations already declare the operation is non-read-only, non-destructive and idempotent, so safety is covered; the description adds compliance context beyond that (RPS § 10 traceability, recording why and what replaces the invoice). It does not say what happens if the invoice is not confirmed, nor what the call returns or how the audit trail is captured.

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, each doing a distinct job: what it does, when it is required, and the compliance constraint. The state transition is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter state-transition tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose, prerequisite and compliance duty. It leaves minor gaps: no statement about failure modes (e.g. invoice not confirmed) and no output description, though no output schema exists to compensate.

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% for the single required parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics ('Object ID', positive integer). The description adds no additional meaning about the id beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource plus the exact state transition ('Return a confirmed sale invoice to draft status'), which immediately distinguishes it from confirm_sale_invoice and delete_sale_invoice. An agent can pick it out of a sibling list of ~90 tools without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Required before delete_sale_invoice against a CONFIRMED invoice'), which both tells the agent when to call this tool and implicitly when not to (draft invoices need no invalidation). The sequencing rule against a named sibling is exactly the kind of routing guidance this dimension rewards.

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