Clone Invoice from Previous

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the resulting state ('saved as a draft — not finalized or assigned a number') and what gets copied (line items and budget links). It stops short of mentioning permissions, error conditions, or what the response returns.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and state outcome, then the workflow hint. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, resulting state, copied fields, and a workflow prerequisite. The notable remaining gap is that it does not state what the call returns (presumably the new invoice ID) nor clarify the optional override parameters.

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 already documents all five params including the required source_invoice_id and the four override fields. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., that note/pay_on/subject/invoiced_on are optional overrides), leaving it at the baseline.

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 and resource ('Creates a new draft invoice') and specifies the source mechanic ('based on a previous invoice, copying line items and budget links'). It is distinct from the plain create_invoice sibling by scope, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the very similar productive_create_invoice_like_last_for_client.

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?

Provides one workflow prerequisite ('Use productive_get_invoice first to inspect the source invoice'), which implies context of use. However, it gives no when-to-use vs. the alternative clone/create-invoice siblings, and no exclusions.

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