stripe_invoices_finalize

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description needn't restate that this is a mutating operation. It adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the irreversible consequence: 'The amounts stop being editable at this point.' It does not mention permission requirements or failure modes, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential state transition and its consequences, and the schema covers both parameters including defaults. Error behaviour and what the response returns are not addressed, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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%, including a clear explanation of autoAdvance's default behaviour, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond it, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

Specific verb ('Finalise') plus resource ('draft invoice') and an explicit statement of the resulting state ('making it open and payable'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling stripe_invoices_create, which creates rather than finalises an invoice.

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?

Usage is implied by 'a draft invoice' — the agent can infer this applies only to drafts. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as stripe_invoices_create for a non-draft case.

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