invoices_bulk_cancel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it returns a count and per-item errors, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether cancellation is reversible (there's an invoices_restore sibling), requires auth/role permissions, has side effects on related documents (payments, proforma conversions), or interacts with e-invoicing/efactura submission state. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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, efficient sentence that packs in the operation, the optional-reason modifier, and the return value summary. No wasted words. Could arguably mention the 1-100 limit but the schema already handles that. Well structured for parsing.

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 description covers the core action and return shape adequately for a batch operation. However, there's no output schema and no annotations. Gaps include: side effects on related records, whether partial failures roll back or commit, and the meaning of error elements in the response. For a batch mutation with sibling restore/storno tools, more context around behavior would help But given the relatively simple 3-param interface, this is minimally acceptable.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema (ids 1-100, reason, companyId). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, naming the optional reason parameter but not explaining companyId override semantics beyond what the schema already states. 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 the tool cancels multiple invoices in batch, with an optional reason, and distinguishes it from single-invoice operations like invoices_cancel. 'Cancel multiple invoices in batch' is a specific verb+resource+scope formulation. It is distinct from sibling tools like invoices_bulk_storno, invoices_bulk_mark_paid, and invoices_bulk_delete.

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 implies use for batch cancellation but doesn't explicitly distinguish when to use this vs invoices_cancel (single) or invoices_bulk_storno. No when-not guidance or alternative tool mentions. The 'batch' framing provides some context, but there's no explicit guidance on edge cases like already-cancelled invoices.

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