Approve Supplier Invoice

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the real-world side effect that approved invoices are paid automatically on the due date — critical context given destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false. It does not say whether an approval can be revoked, what happens on an already-approved invoice, or which permissions/connection state 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, each earning its place: purpose, consequence, and mode distinction, in that order. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

With an output schema handling return values and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the essential missing piece — that approval moves money — plus the preview/commit split. Missing only secondary details such as prerequisites and reversibility, which keep it short of full completeness.

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 67% and the schema already spells out confirm's two modes and company's optionality, so the description's "preview" remark largely restates it. The undocumented invoice_id is self-evident from the required-parameter list; the description adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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 ("Approve ... a supplier invoice") and anchors it to a concrete UI action ("as the Godkänn button does"), which removes ambiguity about the effect. It also adds the downstream consequence (payment by Wint on the due date). No sibling is named, but no sibling offers an approve action, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

"Without confirm it only returns a preview" establishes the two-step workflow and tells the agent which mode is the default. It does not state prerequisites (connection via connect_wint, invoice state) or when a different tool should be chosen instead, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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