Create Invoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Tax-compliant' implies tax handling, but there is no disclosure of auth requirements, whether the invoice is created as draft or finalized, idempotency, or side effects such as contact auto-creation when contact_name is supplied.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with zero filler. It is efficient, though the second sentence largely duplicates schema content.

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?

A mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description should say more about the response or lifecycle. Implicit coverage of the contact reference helps, but return value and post-creation state are left unstated.

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%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters and the baseline is 3. The description restates the item structure (description, quantity, unit price) and the contact lookup behavior, but adds no format, default, or constraint detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a tax-compliant invoice in Quaderno') and outlines what an invoice contains, distinguishing it from list_invoices and create_contact by implication. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is only implicit.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no prerequisites (e.g. contact must exist first, or that create_contact precedes this). The contact-by-ID-or-name note is parameter help, not usage routing, so there is effectively no alternative-selection guidance.

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