accept_invoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Accept a received invoice.' It does not mention side effects (e.g., changing invoice status), prerequisites (e.g., invoice must be in 'received' state), or whether it is reversible. The mutation aspect is implied but not elaborated.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values or outcome, but it does not. It also fails to mention workflow context (e.g., that the invoice must exist and be in a receivable state), leaving the agent without crucial behavioral information for such a mutation tool.

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?

The input schema fully documents the only parameter (invoice_id) with description 'Invoice ID to accept,' and the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100% and the description does not need to compensate.

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 clearly states the action ('Accept') and the resource ('a received invoice'), with 'received' providing scope that distinguishes it from siblings like create_invoice, sign_invoice, and reject_invoice. It is a specific verb+resource pair with no ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like reject_invoice or sign_invoice. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the selection criteria entirely to the agent's inference.

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