Preview Purchase Invoice Totals Correction

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent. Description explicitly states no changes, aligning with annotations. It adds context that the preview is for 'explicit EUR draft totals correction', providing extra behavioral detail.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the action and constraints with no wasted words. Highly efficient and scannable.

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?

With no output schema, the description should hint at return data but does not mention what the preview contains. It covers the basic purpose and safety but lacks details on expected output.

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 has one required integer 'id' with 0% description coverage. Description does not clarify that id refers to the purchase invoice ID, missing an opportunity to add value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it previews a totals correction on a purchase invoice, noting it does not change or confirm. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like get_purchase_invoice or update_purchase_invoice, leaving some ambiguity.

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 phrase 'without changing or confirming the purchase invoice' implies a safe preview, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like confirm_purchase_invoice or get_purchase_invoice.

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