copy_invoice

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior, but the description does not disclose what happens during a copy (e.g., whether it copies line items, changes invoice number, or requires existing invoice). No additional context is provided.

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 is extremely short (one sentence), but conciseness here comes at the expense of clarity and completeness. This is under-specification rather than efficient writing, similar to the 'Process' example. The sentence is front-loaded but fails to earn its place by providing useful information beyond the tool name.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's role in the invoice lifecycle, how the copy is created, or what the parameters control. The lack of any detail beyond the verb phrase makes it impossible for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 60%, with invoice_id, contact_id, and contact_sub_id having short descriptions. However, the tool description itself does not explain any parameters, and title and is_valid_from remain undocumented. The description adds no value in clarifying parameter meaning, and the existing schema descriptions are sparse.

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 clear verb ('Copy') and resource ('invoice'), which distinguishes it from other invoice tools. However, it is grammatically incorrect and lacks specifics about what 'copy' entails, such as whether it duplicates all fields or creates a new invoice. Compared to descriptions like 'Update shared drive settings including name, color, and restrictions', this is only minimally clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_invoice or update_invoice. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. This leaves the agent without any decision-making context.

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