Approve Wave invoice

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the real side effect (posts the invoice to the books), the explicit non-behavior (does not email), and the safety contract that the preview call changes nothing and must be confirmed via fingerprint. This is exactly the mutating-operation context an agent needs when destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false.

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?

Front-loads the verb and effect in the first sentence, then layers the non-effect, the two-step mechanics, and the user-agreement gate. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with an output schema and full param coverage, the description supplies the prerequisite (draft state), the workflow, the human-in-the-loop gate, and the fingerprint handoff. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents confirm, invoice_id, and fingerprint thoroughly. The description reinforces how confirm and fingerprint interlock with the preview step but adds little syntax beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Approve) and resource (a DRAFT invoice) and enumerates the concrete effect: posts to the books and makes it sendable. The clause 'It does not email anyone' carves out a clear boundary against the send-family siblings, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance for the internal two-step flow: first call without confirm yields a preview, and the second call with confirm: true is only appropriate after the user agrees. It implies but never names the alternative send tools, so it falls just short of the when/when-not/alternatives bar for a 5.

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