unpost_invoice

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

Discloses substantial behavior: deletes posting transaction and lot, clears posted-state metadata, returns to open/edit-able state, and the refusal condition on applied payments. No annotations exist, so the description fully carries the burden, and it does so admirably. Minor gap: no statement about irreversibility or audit implications of deletion.

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?

Well-structured with a concise main paragraph followed by a compact Args section. Every sentence earns its place. Slightly verbose in describing the state transition, but all info is relevant given the lack of annotations.

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 a mix of action plus preconditions and disambiguation logic, all covered. The output schema exists and return values need no explanation. Complete enough despite no annotations; the mutation risks (deleting a lot/transaction) are disclosed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains id with an example ('000001') and clarifies owner_type as a disambiguation mechanism for ID collisions with valid values 'customer'/'vendor'. This adds real semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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?

Clear verb+resource pairing ('Reverse a posted invoice or bill') that distinguishes it from post_invoice and delete_invoice siblings. States the primary effect and the resulting state transition explicitly.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (reverse a posted invoice/bill) and names the key precondition — refuses if payments applied, with direct instruction to void payments first. This exclusion criterion is actionable and important for avoiding failures.

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