mark_paid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not state whether the operation is idempotent, what happens to an invoice that is already paid or whose number is unknown, whether a payment record is created, or what permissions are required.

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?

It is a single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, and it contains no padding. It is efficient, but the extreme brevity leaves little room to say anything useful for a mutation tool.

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?

This is a bulk mutation of financial records with no annotations covering safety or reversibility, and the description does not compensate. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the missing behavioral details and the missing comparison with record_payment or mark_expense_paid leave the definition inadequate for a tool that changes invoice state.

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%, and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the 'due' and default-today semantics of paid_date. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it marks invoices as paid. That implicitly separates it from mark_expense_paid, but it never names or contrasts with the similar siblings record_payment and mark_expense_paid, so an agent must infer the boundary from the tool name alone.

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 parenthetical '(napr. podle vypisu z banky)' gives one concrete usage scenario, which is useful context. However, there is no guidance on when to use this instead of record_payment, no prerequisites, and no exclusions, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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