Mark an invoice as sent

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation; the description adds real value on top by clarifying no email is dispatched, that enshrined invoices are rejected, that the result is verified, and that a dry-run environment flag is respected. It does not say whether the state change is reversible or how the verification surfaces.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences plus a warning tag, with no filler. Minor deduction because 'enshrined invoices' is unexplained jargon the agent must guess at.

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?

For a three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, failure condition, no-email scope, verification and dry-run handling. The remaining gaps — reversibility, idempotency, and what 'verifies the result' returns — are small but non-trivial for a state-changing call.

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 100%, so the schema already defines all three parameters, which sets the baseline at 3. The description does add meaning to the cryptic enum codes by translating VPDF/VPR/VP into PDF download, print and postal, but offers nothing on invoiceId or dryRun.

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+resource ('Mark an invoice as sent') and immediately scopes it with 'without emailing anything', plus the meaningful send-type modes. It implicitly distinguishes itself from email-sending and PDF-fetching siblings, though it never names an alternative tool outright.

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 exclusion rule ('refuses enshrined invoices') and a dry-run path ('Honors SEVDESK_DRY_RUN'), which tells the agent when the call will fail and how to preview safely. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead when an invoice is enshrined or when email really is needed.

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