Marks a proforma invoice as sent, transitioning it from draft to read-only so client delivery is recorded.
Mark a proforma invoice as sent to the client. Transitions status from draft to sent. Once sent, the proforma becomes read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | UUID of the proforma invoice to mark as sent | |
| 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 that this is not read-only, is open-world, is not idempotent, and is not destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: the status moves from draft to sent and the proforma becomes read-only afterward. It stops short of clarifying whether a real email is dispatched or whether the status change can be reversed.
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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted text. The purpose, state transition, and consequence are presented in a logical order.
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 mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety traits, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly. The main remaining ambiguity is whether 'sent' means an actual email is dispatched or only a status change is recorded, but the core behavior is clear.
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 both uuid and companyId already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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?
The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a proforma invoice as sent to the client.' It also states the exact state transition from draft to sent, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling proforma actions such as accept, reject, cancel, and convert.
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 draft-to-sent transition implies the tool should be used on a draft proforma, and the read-only consequence is useful context. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of accept, reject, cancel, convert, or other sibling operations, nor does it clarify whether an actual client email is sent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.