Refresh invoice data/PDF

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it's a regeneration (implies overwrite) but doesn't disclose permissions, reversibility, or side effects. Some added context, but not rich.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action 'Regenerate', and includes an illustrative example. No wasted words, ideal conciseness.

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 single-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and effect. Minor omissions like prerequisites are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 covers invoice_id with description 'Invoice UUID' giving 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to elaborate. It adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'regenerate' and identifies the resource 'invoice data and its PDF', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_invoices/get_invoice and other mutation operations such as credit_invoice or refund_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?

Provides an explicit use case ('after changing brand details or a template') giving clear context for when to invoke. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the example effectively communicates the intended scenario.

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