Mark Wave invoice as sent

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

Annotations declare the mutation flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that Wave sends no email, that the first call 'changes nothing' and only returns a preview plus fingerprint, and that the confirmation call requires the fingerprint. That is exactly the safety-relevant context an agent needs before mutating.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the constraint, then the operational sequence. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or schema.

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 annotation coverage, the description supplies the workflow and safety narrative. It does not spell out the resulting invoice state after confirmation, but that is a minor gap given the output schema exists.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning the schema does not: confirm is not just a boolean but the second half of a preview-then-confirm handshake, and fingerprint is only valid when paired with confirm: true. send_method remains schema-only, which is acceptable.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Record that an approved invoice was sent outside Wave') and immediately scopes it against the sibling wave_send_invoice with 'Wave emails no one.' An agent can distinguish this bookkeeping tool from the actual-sending tool without opening either 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?

It clearly gives the condition for use ('an approved invoice was sent outside Wave (e.g. from your own email)') and lays out the two-step call sequence in order. It stops short of naming wave_send_invoice as the alternative for actually emailing, relying on the implicit contrast instead.

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