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

Annotations already declare write, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, lowering the burden. The description adds a useful detail: the result is a new draft (not submitted, original untouched), aligning with destructiveHint=false. It does not state what fields carry over or whether permissions beyond the ids are needed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though arguably a touch terse given the mutation it performs.

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 simple two-param tool with annotations covering the safety profile and full schema coverage, the essentials are present. It omits what gets copied into the draft and the resulting state, which would have added value.

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 both id and companyId are documented in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb (duplicate) and resource (invoice) and clarifies the output is a new draft. That distinguishes it somewhat from create-invoice-draft, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with the siblings it could be confused with.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create-invoice-draft or preview-invoice. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name.

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