Duplicate Invoice

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

The description details what is copied and stripped, and states the new invoice starts as 'draft' with today's date. Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden. It does not cover return value or potential side effects, but the behavioral traits are well-described for a mutation tool.

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 concise with two English sentences plus a usage example. The Spanish translation adds length but is acceptable for bilingual contexts. Information is front-loaded with the action.

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 tool is simple with 3 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the duplication behavior well but does not mention what the tool returns (presumably the new invoice object). It also does not explicitly state that the original invoice remains unchanged, though this is implied.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context for newIssueDate (defaults to today) and id (the invoice to duplicate), but does not elaborate on newDueDate. It adds moderate value 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?

The description clearly states the tool duplicates an existing invoice for a new period, specifying what is copied (line items, client data, tax rate, notes) and what is stripped (ID, document number, status, timestamps). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_invoice or update_invoice by focusing on duplication.

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 a clear use case: 'Perfect for recurring invoices — duplicate last month's invoice and adjust if needed.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives like create_invoice for new invoices.

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