create_invoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that the invoice is always created in draft and requires a follow-up call to post_invoice(). It also details the required structure of the 'lines' parameter, providing useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 efficiently structured: a purpose sentence, parameter breakdown, and a note on the draft workflow. Every sentence adds necessary information without fluff or repetition, making it highly concise.

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?

The description covers the essential parameters and the draft behavior, but it omits an explicit note about the return value (e.g., created invoice ID) and does not explain optional fields like company_id or journal_id. However, given the schema and the tool's simplicity, it is largely complete for agent use.

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 0%, so the description compensates well for the most complex parameters: move_type is fully enumerated with meanings, and lines is described with required and optional fields. Other parameters (partner_id, ref, company_id, etc.) are not explained, but their names are self-explanatory and the description adds value where needed most.

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 states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a DRAFT customer invoice or vendor bill.' It further distinguishes between customer invoices, credit notes, and vendor bills/credit notes via the move_type parameter, making it distinct from sibling tools like create_journal_entry.

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 provides clear usage context by noting that invoices are always created in draft and instructing to call post_invoice() to post. This implies the workflow and differentiates from posting tools, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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