Storno a sent invoice

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing an SEF-side state precondition and a human-approval gate. It does not disclose whether the storno is itself reversible, what SEF returns, or how failures on already-reversed invoices behave.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action scoped first and the constraints immediately after. Nothing would be gained by shortening it.

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?

The destructive, open-world mutation framing is adequately covered by annotations plus the approval gate, and no output schema means return values need not be explained. But with 0% schema coverage on three parameters and no contrast against sef_cancel_invoice, key call-shaping information is missing.

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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and adds nothing: it never explains that invoiceId identifies the target, that comment is a mandatory human-visible reason, or that stornoNumber is an optional custom storno document number. An agent reading only the description cannot tell the difference between the required comment and optional stornoNumber.

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: 'Reverses (storno) a sales invoice on SEF', which is far more precise than the title alone and identifies the document type and system. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling sef_cancel_invoice, so an agent must guess which reversal path applies.

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 a clear applicability condition ('only for status Sent, Accepted or Rejected') and an explicit gating rule ('Only call after explicit user approval'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming the alternative tool (sef_cancel_invoice) or explaining what to do when the invoice is in another status.

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