invoices_restore

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool transitions status from cancelled to draft, explains restrictions on when restoration is possible (ANAF submission, credit notes, payments), and notes the invoice becomes editable/reissuable afterward. It doesn't detail error responses or side effects on related records, but the core behavioral contract is well stated.

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, all information-dense with no filler. The constraints are front-loaded ('Only for accidental cancellations') and the conditions are listed concisely. Slightly verbose with the trailing sentence but earns its place by explaining the post-restore consequence. Could be trimmed slightly but is efficient overall.

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 targeted mutation tool with a simple 2-parameter schema and no output schema. The description covers purpose, constraints, and post-condition. It could add details about what happens to the cancellation reason, timestamps, or whether a draft series/number is preserved, but for its simplicity it is reasonably complete.

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 both uuid and companyId are already documented in the schema. The description doesn't add nuance beyond what the schema states — uuid is 'Invoice UUID to restore' and companyId is the override. Baseline 3 is appropriate per the rubric since 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?

The description clearly states the action (restore a cancelled invoice), the target (back to draft status), and the specific resource (invoice). It distinguishes from siblings like invoices_cancel and invoices_bulk_storno. The verb+resource+outcome structure is specific and unambiguous.

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 states 'Only for accidental cancellations' and lists three conditions that block restoration (submitted to ANAF, has credit notes, recorded payments). It also states the follow-up: 'The invoice can then be edited and reissued.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and exclusions.

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