invoices_bulk_mark_paid

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that payment records are created against remaining balance, that partial failures are reported per-item rather than aborting the batch, and the default payment method. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then side effects, then return shape. No filler or repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the return value (updated count plus per-item errors). Combined with 100% schema coverage for the four parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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 ids, paidAt, companyId and paymentMethod are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the paymentMethod default; it adds no format or edge-case semantics (e.g., what happens to already-paid or partially-paid invoices in the id array). 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?

Specific verb + resource + scope: 'Mark multiple invoices as fully paid in batch', plus the side effect (creates payment records for each invoice's remaining balance). This clearly distinguishes it from single-record siblings like payments_create and from invoices_bulk_cancel/bulk_storno.

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?

Usage is implied by the batch framing and by the fact that payment records are created per invoice, which suggests payments_create is the single-invoice alternative. However, the description never explicitly states when to use this vs. payments_create, nor any preconditions (e.g., invoice must be issued/unpaid).

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