issue_invoice

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

Annotations indicate the operation is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not state what changes occur (e.g., invoice status updated), any side effects, or that it is reversible via revert_issue_invoice.

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 very brief, which is concise, but it essentially repeats the tool's title and does not add explanatory value. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the invoice lifecycle position, what 'issuing' entails, or how it differs from the many adjacent invoice tools, making it inadequate for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The sole parameter invoice_id is fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage. The description provides no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 clearly identifies the action as 'Issue an invoice', using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explain what 'issue' means operationally or differentiate it from sibling tools like send_invoice, create_invoice, or mark_as_sent_invoice.

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. No mention of prerequisites, typical workflow position (e.g., after creation), or that this is distinct from sending or creating an invoice.

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