Run Recurring Invoice Now

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds that the invoice is created as a draft (configurable via draftOnly). However, it does not clarify whether repeated calls generate multiple instances or what happens if the template is paused or already has a pending invoice.

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 English portion is concise and front-loaded with key information. The bilingual repetition slightly reduces conciseness but does not degrade clarity.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present), the description covers purpose, usage, and draft behavior. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., template must exist and be active) but is otherwise complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description provides a concrete example (templateId='rec_abc123') and explains the effect of draftOnly, adding value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 triggers immediate generation of the next invoice instance from a recurring template, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_recurring_invoice or pause_recurring_invoice.

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 explains it is useful for billing ahead of schedule or recovering missed runs, and notes that the generated invoice is a draft requiring separate review and send. This provides context for when to use, though it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios.

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