invoices_schedule_invoice_schedule

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what the annotations already state. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description reveals nothing about side effects, required permissions, or what happens on execution.

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 but not in a positive way—it is under-specified. One vague sentence with grammatical errors fails to provide any useful structure or front-loading.

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 mutation tool with a complex nested schema and no output schema, the description is entirely inadequate. An agent would have no idea what 'scheduling an invoice' entails, what the required scheduleId and liveMode mean semantically, or what success looks like.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters (scheduleId, altId, altType, autoPayment). The description contributes nothing, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 'Schedule an schedule invoice' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without any additional information. It fails to distinguish this tool from its siblings like invoices_create_invoice_schedule or invoices_update_invoice_schedule.

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, under what circumstances, or how it differs from alternative invoice scheduling tools. The description provides no context for selection.

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