invoices_bulk_mark_paid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that payment records are created for each invoice's remaining balance, implies mutation (marks as paid, creates records), states the default paymentMethod, and notes per-item error reporting. It could add whether this is reversible or has idempotency behavior, but the disclosed effects are reasonably complete for a batch mutation tool.

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 with no fluff; front-loaded with the core action, then key behavioral details, then return value. Concise and efficient, though it could arguably be slightly more structured around edge cases.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return format (count of updated invoices and per-item errors). It covers the batch semantics, default payment method, and balance handling. For a batch mutation with 4 params and no output schema, this is reasonably complete, though it could note limits (max 100) which are in the schema.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining the remaining-balance semantics (payment records for remaining balance), the default of bank_transfer, and that paymentMethod applies to all invoices uniformly. This goes beyond the schema's simple property descriptions.

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 verb (mark as paid), resource (multiple invoices), scope (batch/full payment), and side effects (creates payment records for remaining balance). It distinguishes from single-invoice actions like invoices_cancel or invoices_bulk_cancel by specifying full payment and balance handling.

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 it creates payment records for remaining balances and returns counts plus per-item errors, giving clear context for when to use it for bulk payment processing. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like invoices_bulk_cancel or individual payments_create, but the clear purpose makes the appropriate use case evident.

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