Create Invoice Attribution

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one useful constraint: the invoice must be a draft. Beyond that it is silent on permissions, whether re-linking an already-attributed invoice is idempotent or an error, and what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves meaningful gaps.

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, front-loaded with the core action, with nothing bloated. The second sentence is partially redundant with the first, repeating that the invoice is connected to a budget, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 operation is fairly self-contained and the schema is fully annotated, but with no annotations and no output schema the definition should still cover side effects, failure modes, and the read counterpart. It covers the core action and the draft-state constraint but stops there.

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 all five parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal gloss ('budget/deal' for deal_id, 'allocated amount' for amount) and no format, range, or period semantics for date_from/date_to.

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?

States a specific verb ('Link') with both resources ('draft invoice', 'budget/deal') and the allocated amount, so the agent knows exactly what is being created. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from its obvious sibling 'productive_list_invoice_attributions', so sibling differentiation is left to the reader.

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 second sentence only restates the purpose ('connects the invoice to a budget for financial tracking') rather than telling the agent when to reach for this tool. There is no mention of prerequisites, no exclusions, and no pointer to 'productive_list_invoice_attributions' or 'productive_create_invoice' as alternatives.

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