invoices_bulk_storno

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety bar is mostly covered. The description adds real value beyond them: eligibility state gating, partial-failure semantics ('per-item errors'), and the shape of the result. It does not warn that repeating the call creates duplicate storno documents (idempotentHint=false), which is the notable remaining gap.

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, zero waste: purpose first, eligibility second, return contract third. Every sentence carries distinct information and the most important constraint is front-loaded.

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 only two flat parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does the job of explaining what comes back ('count of created storno invoices and per-item errors'). Slightly incomplete because it is silent on side effects on the source invoices' status and numbering, which matters for a credit-note mutation.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the 1–100 bound and the companyId override fallback. The description only restates the eligibility constraint already present on 'ids', adding no new semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource combination ('Create storno (refund/credit note) invoices') and scopes it to batch operation over multiple invoices. The parenthetical defines the domain term 'storno' so an agent can distinguish it from invoices_bulk_cancel or invoices_bulk_delete without consulting another schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: 'Only outgoing invoices with status "issued" or "validated" are eligible' — actionable gating information. It stops short of naming alternative siblings (e.g. invoices_cancel vs invoices_bulk_cancel) or stating when this is the wrong choice, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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