ghl_invoice_void

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

The description adds important behavioral context (irreversible, cannot be paid/reactivated) and OAuth scopes. However, it contradicts the destructiveHint annotation (false) by describing an irreversible state change. Additionally, the phrase 'delete invoice' is inaccurate for voiding, creating confusion.

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 has redundancy: 'Void invoice' is repeated from the title. The endpoint and OAuth info could be more concisely integrated. It is not overly long but could be streamlined.

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?

Given no output schema and 2 parameters, the description lacks error handling, prerequisites (e.g., invoice status before voiding), and outcome details. The confusing 'delete' wording also harms 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 100%, so the input schema documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters (altId, altType, invoiceId) beyond what is already in the schema.

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 'marks the invoice as void' and explains irreversibility, which defines the tool's purpose. However, it also misleadingly says 'API to delete invoice by invoice id' which could cause confusion with the sibling tool ghl_invoice_delete. The purpose is mostly clear but has a slight ambiguity.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like ghl_invoice_delete or ghl_invoice_schedule_cancel. The irreversibility hint implies finality, but no comparative guidance is provided.

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