invoices_bulk_storno

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that storno creates refund/credit-note invoices (a mutating operation) and mentions per-item error reporting. However, it doesn't state side effects like whether source invoices are destroyed, renumbered, or if there are cascade implications. For a mutation with no annotation coverage, some additional behavioral context (idempotency, reversibility, partial success behavior) would help, but the basics are present.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loads the purpose, states eligibility constraint, and the expected return value. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a batch mutation tool with 2 params, no output schema, no annotations. The description covers the core purpose, eligibility, and return shape. It's slightly thin on what 'storno' means for the target invoices (does it invalidate them? create a paired credit invoice) and failure behavior for partially-eligible batches, which matters for a batch operation with per-item errors. But overall it's usable as-is for an agent.

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 schema already documents both parameters comprehensively. The description adds the eligibility filter context (issued/validated only) which reinforces the ids parameter meaning. However, the description adds little beyond what the schema already states about ids and companyId, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it creates storno (refund/credit note) invoices for multiple invoices in batch. It defines the operation (storno creation), scope (multiple invoices), and distinguishes from single-invoice operations like invoices_cancel or delivery_notes_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?

The description explicitly specifies eligibility criteria: 'Only outgoing invoices with status issued or validated are eligible.' This tells the agent exactly when this tool applies and what conditions must be met. The sibling invoicing tools (invoices_cancel vs storno) are implicitly distinguished by the batch+storno specificity.

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