Send an approved draft to SEF

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

Annotations already declare destructive, openWorld and idempotent; the description goes beyond them by explaining the idempotency semantics (alreadySent=true plus the earlier SEF response), the environment gate, and that server-side validation is skipped by default per SEF support. It leaves the success payload shape unstated, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then preconditions, then the flag rule, then the duplicate-send behavior — a sensible order. It restates the 'option is not in operation yet' caveat that also appears in the executeValidation schema description, which is mild redundancy.

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 return-value duty and does explain the alreadySent outcome. It is complete enough for a 3-parameter mutation, though it never says what a first-time successful upload returns (e.g., a submission identifier) for the agent to report or reuse.

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 33%: executeValidation is documented in the schema (including the default and the caveat), while draftId and approvalCode have no schema descriptions. The description adds only that approvalCode is 'the user approved' one and that draftId refers to an existing draft — useful but thin for the two required parameters.

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 concrete verb and resource — 'Uploads a previously drafted invoice to SEF' — which separates it from sef_draft_invoice (creates the draft) and sef_get_draft (reads it). It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the 'previously drafted' qualifier makes the pipeline position unambiguous.

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 precondition ('Only call after the user explicitly approved this exact draft'), a production precondition (SEF_MCP_ALLOW_PROD_WRITE=true), and a precise trigger for the optional flag ('only if the user explicitly asks for it'). An agent has no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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