proforma_invoices_reject

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states a key consequence: once rejected, the proforma cannot be converted to an invoice. However, it doesn't disclose whether rejection is reversible, whether it requires permissions, or what happens to existing acceptance status if any. The one stated consequence is valuable but partial.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. The critical consequence is stated in the second sentence without ceremony. Well sized for the operation complexity.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the state transition (reject) meaning is fully captured by stating the permanent consequence. The 4 schema parameters each have descriptions at 100% coverage. For a state-changing action with no output schema, this 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 the schema already documents all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—it mentions 'rejection reason and notes' but doesn't elaborate on formats, requirements, or how companyId's override works. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (mark as rejected) + specific resource (proforma invoice) + clear actor (by the client). Distinct from siblings like proforma_invoices_accept, proforma_invoices_cancel, and proforma_invoices_convert—the rejection action is clearly differentiated from cancellation and acceptance.

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 implies when to use it (when the client rejects a proforma) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives. Sibling tools like proforma_invoices_cancel and proforma_invoices_delete exist, but no 'use this instead of X when...' guidance is given. The state consequence provides some implicit guidance about when to choose this over cancel.

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