Create Draft Invoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add one genuinely non-obvious trait: the invoice is not finalized and gets no number, so finalization is manual. Beyond that it is silent on permissions, whether the returned draft ID can be chained into create_line_item, and any side effects or limits — significant gaps for a mutation with 12 parameters.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact — that the result is an unfinalized draft — is front-loaded immediately after the core 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?

For a 12-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical draft/finalization behavior but leaves open what the tool returns (e.g., the new invoice ID) and how it pairs with line-item creation. It is adequate but leaves real gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 every parameter (company_id, document_type_id, invoiced_on, invoice_type_id defaults, etc.) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Creates a new draft invoice') and scopes it precisely as a draft, which separates it from the nearby create_invoice_from_previous and create_invoice_like_last_for_client siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 establishes the important precondition that this produces a draft requiring manual finalization, which tells the agent when the output is usable. However, it never states when to prefer this over the two sibling creation tools or what prerequisite data (line items, company) is needed, leaving usage largely implied.

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