Pursue to a Credit Note

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds context about the endpoint and the effect of finalize (immediately paid-off, reducing invoice open amount). However, it does not broadly disclose the destructive nature (e.g., that it reduces the preceding invoice's open amount) beyond the parameter description. The main description could be more explicit about the mutation's impact.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and key behavioral detail. It maps directly to the endpoint and explains the critical finalize parameter without extraneous information. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 3 parameters with full schema descriptions, and the description covers the core functionality. It lacks explicit mention of return values or error conditions, but given the presence of sibling tools and clear purpose, it is sufficiently complete. The finalize parameter description in schema includes reduction of invoice open amount, which is useful context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by mapping parameters to the endpoint URL and explaining the finalize parameter's effect. It also references the body shape as similar to lexware_create_credit_note, which aids understanding for users familiar with that tool.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'credit note', with the specific context 'as a follow-up to a preceding invoice'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lexware_create_credit_note (which presumably creates a standalone credit note) and lexware_pursue_invoice (which would pursue an invoice instead).

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 description tells when to use this tool (to create a credit note following an invoice) and explains the finalize parameter behavior. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the condition 'preceding invoice' is clear. The sibling tools are listed but not referenced, so the guideline is good but not explicit about exclusions.

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