invoices_send_invoice

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action of 'sending'. It doesn't clarify side effects (e.g., whether notifications are triggered, whether the invoice status changes, or the relevance of the action parameter). With only minimal annotation coverage, the description should carry more explanatory weight and fails to do so.

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—just two words—which violates the principle of appropriate sizing. It's under-specified, not efficiently concise. There is no structural benefit because it omits essential context that could help the agent.

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?

This tool has 8 parameters, including nested objects (autoPayment, sentFrom) and enums (action). The description provides no information about required fields, how to choose the action, or what the auto-payment configuration is. Without any hint of dependencies or special cases, an agent cannot reliably invoke this 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 75%, which is relatively high, so the schema already documents most parameter meanings. The description itself provides no parameter-level guidance, but since the baseline is 3 for high coverage, it earns that baseline without adding value.

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 and resource ('Send invoice'), so the primary purpose is understandable. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like invoices_send_estimate or invoices_create_invoice, nor does it hint at the multiple sending methods (email, SMS, etc.) that the schema allows.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about prerequisites, and no exclusions. It is purely a two-word statement with zero situational information.

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