dolibarr_validate_invoice

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool assigns a definitive invoice number, implying a state change from draft to validated, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the invoice becomes immutable, triggers workflows, or requires specific permissions). The description is too brief to cover behavioral traits.

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 a single sentence of 8 words, efficiently conveying the core action and result. However, it may be overly concise, sacrificing explanatory value. Still, no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not mention prerequisites (invoice must be in draft state), failure cases (if already validated), or return value. The agent lacks information to correctly handle edge cases.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'id'. The description does not mention or explain the parameter, leaving the agent to infer that it refers to the invoice ID from context. It adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Validate a draft invoice') and the outcome ('assigning it a definitive invoice number'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_invoice' (creates a draft) and 'get_invoice' (retrieves without validation).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that the invoice must be in draft state or that validation is the final step before using the invoice. Siblings like 'dolibarr_validate_proposal' suggest a pattern, but no explicit when/when-not advice is given.

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