create_sales_invoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It provides meaningful side-effect information: posts balanced accounting ledger transactions, auto-assigns sequential invoice numbers, and specifies exact verbatim output behavior on success. This goes well beyond a basic mutation description, though it omits details like failure behavior or permissions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides important behavioral context and a critical output instruction. The output instruction is verbose but earns its place because it directly shapes agent behavior. The standalone 'CREATE ONLY.' is slightly redundant but short.

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 purpose, side effects, numbering behavior, and output handling, which is a solid baseline for a create tool. However, given the absence of an output schema and low parameter coverage, it leaves gaps around return structure, parameter semantics, and edge cases that an agent would need for fully reliable invocation.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds little beyond the schema for most fields: only invoice_number's auto-assignment is highlighted. Parameters like date, party_id/party_name, notes, and stock_lines field semantics remain unexplained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a GST sales invoice with stock items.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from siblings like create_purchase_invoice or create_service_outward by the 'sales' and 'stock items' scope.

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 phrase 'CREATE ONLY' implies the tool should not be used for updates or other operations, and the sales-invoice naming implies the general use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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