create_invoice

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so it is understood to be a non-idempotent write operation, but the description does not disclose any additional side effects, permission requirements, or constraints. It is minimal and uninformative.

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?

While the description is very short, it is under-specified rather than concise. It consists only of the phrase 'Create invoice,' which fails to convey any substantive information. The structure is fine, but the content is not helpful.

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 tool with 23 parameters and no output schema, a two-word description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the response contains, how to handle edge cases, or how to structure the creation request. The annotations and schema provide some context, but the description itself is nearly empty.

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?

The description provides no parameter-level detail. Schema description coverage is about 65%, leaving several parameters undocumented, but the description does nothing to compensate for the missing fields. Key parameters like positions have schema descriptions, but the tool description itself adds no meaning beyond 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 'Create invoice' is a tautology—it restates the tool name without adding any detail about what the operation actually does or what makes it distinct from sibling tools like create_invoice_from_order or create_invoice_from_quote. It lacks a specific verb+resource beyond the name itself and provides no differentiation.

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. The description does not mention when an invoice should be created directly versus converted from an order or quote, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. The schema hints at automatic numbering, but the description itself offers no usage context.

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