approveInvoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool sets status to approved and that the host handles confirmation, but it lacks details on idempotency, side effects (e.g., email sending is parameterized but not described), or error handling. The disclosure is minimal.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Highly efficient.

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 the lack of output schema and the presence of a nested parameter object, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose and a key usage guideline, but omits return values, idempotency, and potential error scenarios, which could impact agent understanding.

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 all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's descriptions, meeting the baseline but providing no extra value.

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?

Clearly states 'Approve an invoice; sets status to approved.' The verb 'approve' and resource 'invoice' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like payInvoice or voidInvoice by specifying the effect on status.

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?

Explicitly warns that the host enforces user confirmation via an approval gate and instructs not to ask the user to re-confirm before calling. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention alternatives beyond the given instruction.

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