Mark a proforma invoice as accepted by the client to update its status and enable conversion into a final invoice.
Mark a proforma invoice as accepted by the client. Transitions status to accepted. Once accepted, the proforma is ready to be converted to a final invoice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | UUID of the proforma invoice to mark as accepted | |
| companyId | No | Company UUID (overrides configured default) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the state-machine effect and downstream consequence, but is silent on what happens if the invoice is already accepted/rejected/cancelled, whether the transition is reversible, or what permissions are required.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by its effect and consequence. Minor redundancy between 'mark as accepted' and 'transitions status to accepted', but it clarifies rather than wastes.
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 simple two-parameter status-transition tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this is close to complete: the action, resulting state, and next step are all stated. Only edge-case behavior (already accepted, invalid source state) is missing.
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% with only two params, so the schema already documents uuid and the companyId override. The description adds nothing about either parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not additive.
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 and resource ('Mark a proforma invoice as accepted') plus the resulting state change. It implicitly distinguishes the action from siblings like proforma_invoices_reject or proforma_invoices_cancel, though it never names them explicitly.
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 workflow position is implied: this is the step after the client accepts, and 'ready to be converted to a final invoice' points toward the convert sibling. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., does the invoice need to be in 'sent' status first?) and no named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.