retry_consignment_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. It names the failure modes, implies a re-booking side effect, and explains the undo path via the cancel hook. It stops short of stating permissions, idempotency, or post-success state, but the core behavior and alternatives are transparent enough.

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 compact and every sentence earns its place: purpose, parameter guidance, undo alternative, and confirmation flag. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 retry action with no output schema, the description covers tool selection, parameter sourcing, and the correct alternative for undo. It omits return values and explicit success/failure signals, but the queue-action framing and sibling references supply enough context for invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines `line` precisely as the Consignment Out Line name and points to consignment_dealer_orders for resolution. It also mentions `confirm=true` as required, though it does not explain what confirm=false would do; this is a minor gap given the schema's default.

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: 'Retry the settlement Sales Invoice for a Sold consignment line whose automatic booking failed.' It also identifies the tool as the Dealer Orders queue's Retry Invoice action, making it easy to distinguish from related operations like consignment_dealer_orders and frappe_cancel_document.

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 explicit when-to-use conditions: automatic booking failed due to error log, total mismatch, or expired dealer FFL at submit. It also provides an explicit when-not-to-use instruction by routing undo cases to frappe_cancel_document instead, with a note about the cancel hook reopening the parent.

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