invoices_sync_client

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

The description explicitly states the operation invalidates cached XML/PDF files so they regenerate with corrected data, which is valuable behavioral disclosure. It also clearly gates the operation to specific invoice states (not uploaded to ANAF, not cancelled), making side effects and prerequisites transparent. With no annotations provided, this description carries the full burden well.

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?

The description is compact but packs substantial information into two sentences: purpose, preconditions, behavioral side effect (cache invalidation), and the sibling alternative. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 2 params (100% schema coverage), no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers purpose, preconditions, side effects, and provides the batch alternative. It also explains what data gets updated (receiver name, CUI/CNP, buyer snapshot, VAT rules), making the scope clear. This is complete for the tool's complexity level.

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%, meaning both uuid and companyId are documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces the uuid's role (invoice to resync) and the cache-invalidation implication. Per the baseline, 3 is appropriate when schema handles the heavy lifting, and the description provides matching context about what the resync updates.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Resync a single invoice with its client's current profile data') and names the specific fields involved. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling clients_sync_invoices (batch version) by explicitly naming that alternative in the final sentence. Purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 provides strong usage guidance: it explicitly states when the operation is NOT allowed (if uploaded to ANAF or cancelled), implicitly signaling when it IS allowed (unsent/rejected invoices). It also names the batch alternative clients_sync_invoices for resyncing multiple unsent invoices at once, giving the agent clear decision-making context.

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