invoices_sync_client

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is already structured. The description adds real value by disclosing the gating conditions and the cascading side effect (cached XML/PDF invalidated and regenerated), but it does not say what the call returns or what happens when the preconditions fail (error vs. partial apply).

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 tight sentences; the core action is front-loaded, preconditions second, side effect and alternative last. No redundancy against the schema or annotations.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, side effects, and the sibling alternative, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It falls short only on the return payload and failure behavior, which matters given there is no output 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 coverage is 100% with only two params, so the schema documents uuid and the companyId override adequately. The description names the fields being synced (receiver name, CUI/CNP, VAT rules) but adds nothing about parameter syntax or the companyId override, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('resync a single invoice with its client's current profile data') with the affected fields enumerated, and it explicitly contrasts with the sibling clients_sync_invoices. An agent can distinguish it from the many other invoices_* tools without opening a 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 hard preconditions ('only allowed while the invoice has not been uploaded to ANAF (or was rejected) and is not cancelled') plus the explicit alternative for the bulk case (clients_sync_invoices). Both when-to-use and when-not are covered.

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