Duplicate Invoice

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

The description details what is copied (line items, client, tax rate, notes) and what is stripped (original ID, document number, status, timestamps), plus the new invoice starts as 'draft'. Annotations (destructiveHint: false) align with non-destructive creation, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 bilingual, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds value. It is appropriately sized, though the Spanish repetition slightly reduces conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (duplicating with several field groups) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is copied, what is reset, and the resulting draft status. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 sufficiently documents parameters. The description adds limited extra meaning: it mentions the new invoice defaults to today's date and allows providing a due date, but does not elaborate on the id parameter beyond what's in 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 it duplicates an existing invoice for a new period, copying line items and client data while stripping identifiers and resetting status. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_invoice (new from scratch) or update_invoice (modify existing).

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?

It explicitly suggests usage for recurring invoices ('Perfect for recurring invoices — duplicate last month's invoice and adjust if needed.'), providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or 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.