Preview Purchase Invoice Totals Correction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description's 'without changing or confirming' largely restates that profile; it adds the 'draft' and 'EUR' qualifiers but leaves unexplained where the 'explicit' correction values originate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is appropriate for a narrow preview tool. The compact phrasing is efficient but borders on cryptic ('explicit ... correction'), slightly reducing clarity for the sake of brevity.

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 carries the burden of explaining what the preview returns (e.g. current vs corrected totals), and it does not. It also never explains what 'explicit correction' means or how the corrected values are supplied given only an id, leaving the tool's core behavior underspecified.

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?

There is a single required parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. The agent must infer that 'id' is the purchase invoice identifier and cannot tell whether it identifies the invoice, a draft revision, or something else.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Preview') with a specific resource ('purchase invoice totals correction'), so an agent can distinguish it from confirm_purchase_invoice or update_purchase_invoice. It is clear what operation is performed, though the phrase 'explicit EUR draft totals correction' is dense and never fully unpacked.

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 clause 'without changing or confirming the purchase invoice' implies this is a safe pre-check before a confirmation step, giving implied usage context. However, it never names the sibling tools it complements (e.g. confirm_purchase_invoice) or states explicitly when a caller should reach for this versus a full update.

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