Void invoice

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior; the description adds meaningful context by stating that voiding 'cancels the invoice while keeping the record.' There is no contradiction with the annotations, and the description provides value beyond the flags.

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 front-loaded with the action, followed by the scoping condition and the behavioral outcome. Each sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description provides the operation, when to use it, and the resulting state. The destructive behavior is already covered by annotations, so the description is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema documents locationId but leaves invoiceId without a description, and the description does not explain invoiceId or locationId further. 'Void an invoice' makes it clear that invoiceId identifies the invoice, but at 50% schema coverage the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter detail.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Void an invoice') and explains the mechanism: 'Voiding cancels the invoice while keeping the record.' It also distinguishes voiding from deletion, noting this is for invoices that 'can no longer be deleted,' which differentiates it from the sibling delete tool.

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 gives an explicit condition for use: 'invoices that have already been sent.' This clearly communicates when voiding applies and implies that deletion is for unsent invoices, though it does not explicitly name ghl_delete_invoice as the alternative.

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