Mark a draft receipt as issued at the point of sale, transitioning it to read-only status and locking its fiscal data to prevent further changes.
Mark a receipt as issued at the point of sale. Transitions status from draft to issued. Once issued, the receipt becomes read-only and its fiscal data is locked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | UUID of the receipt to mark as issued | |
| 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 mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true), and the description adds genuinely new consequences: the record becomes read-only and its fiscal data is locked. It still doesn't say what happens if the receipt isn't in draft or whether authorization/fiscal config is 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, then the transition, then the consequence. No filler and no repetition of the name.
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 small two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: what moves, what locks, and that it's one-way in effect. Missing only error-condition guidance (non-draft receipts) and confirmation of what the response contains.
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 both parameters documented (uuid and companyId override), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no semantics about the uuid target or when the companyId override matters, which is the baseline expectation here.
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 receipt as issued') plus the state transition it performs. It does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like receipts_cancel, receipts_convert_to_invoice, payments_receipt_issue, or invoices_issue, so an agent must infer which 'issue' applies where.
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?
'Transitions status from draft to issued' and 'at the point of sale' imply the precondition (receipt must already exist in draft) but never state it as a requirement or say what to do otherwise. No explicit exclusions or routing to alternatives such as payments_receipt_issue for payment-linked receipts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.