cancel_invoice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the critical IRREVERSIBLE nature of the action and mandates user confirmation before execution, providing essential behavioral context for an agent.

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?

The description is four short, direct sentences in French, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by critical warnings. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema. The description covers purpose, irreversibility, confirmation, and usage condition, which is comprehensive. However, it could specify the invoice's post-cancellation state or side effects, though this is minor given the clarity already provided.

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%, so both parameters are fully documented. The description reinforces that the invoice number and reason are needed ('avec le numéro de facture et le motif') but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Annuler une facture existante' (cancel an existing invoice). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_invoice. No 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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Utiliser uniquement en cas d'erreur avérée' (use only in cases of proven error) and 'Ne jamais annuler sans confirmation explicite de l'utilisateur' (never cancel without explicit user confirmation). This clearly indicates when and when-not to invoke the tool.

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