clients_sync_invoices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that cached XML/PDF files are invalidated (a side effect on related artifacts), that it rewrites older invoices, and that it returns a count. However, it does not state whether this operation is reversible, whether it affects invoices in draft/sent states specifically, or whether it requires specific permissions — though most material behaviors are disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, all earning their place. Front-loaded with the primary action, then scope/exclusions in sentence two, and side-effect plus return value in sentence three. Zero waste, no filler.

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 is a bulk mutation with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description covers the action, scope, exclusions, side effects, and return value. It omits explicit permission requirements and rate-limit info, but given the moderate complexity and clear boundary conditions (unsent, non-ANAF, non-cancelled), the description is adequately complete.

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 both parameters (uuid, companyId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds context about what the operation does semantically with the client profile data, but doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Resync') applied to a specific resource ('unsent invoices') with a defined scope (rewrites older invoices, distinct from automatic propagation on client update). It clearly differentiates from the sibling invoices_sync_client by explicitly contrasting the 'current month only' behavior, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when this tool applies (unsent, not uploaded to ANAF, not cancelled invoices) and contrasts it with automatic propagation ('current month only'). It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool for month-only syncing, but the invoices_sync_client sibling is clearly implied. The exclusion conditions (not ANAF-uploaded, not cancelled) provide strong usage guidance.

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