agenta_invoices_send_receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether the send is idempotent, whether it fails when no buyer email exists, whether it requires permissions, or what the caller observes on success.

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?

One short sentence with zero padding and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terse size leaves substance unstated rather than adding value.

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 one-parameter side-effecting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but omits failure modes and observable effects of triggering an email. An agent can call it, but cannot predict what happens if the invoice lacks a buyer address.

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 100% with a single 'id' parameter already documented as 'The invoice id', and the description adds no further format or source details. When the schema does the heavy lifting, a 3 baseline 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 states a specific verb (re-send) and resource (the receipt email) plus the recipient (buyer on file), so the action is unambiguous. It is reasonably distinguishable from the sibling agenta_invoices_receipt, though it never explicitly contrasts the two.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling agenta_invoices_receipt (likely the fetch-an-existing-receipt counterpart). The 're-send' prefix faintly implies a prior send happened, but nothing guides tool selection.

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