Invoices_createInvoicesExport

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a notable trait—execution happens in the Kuudo deployment, not locally—but does not explain side effects, asynchronous behavior, response format, required authentication, or how to track the created export. For a mutation-like operation, this is insufficient.

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 short and the purpose sentence is clear, but 'Catalog entry' is a filler that does not earn its place. The most important information—what the tool does—is placed last rather than front-loaded, and the location statement could be integrated more tightly.

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 create-style operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain how results are obtained or how to verify the export request. It only mentions the remote execution location and the creation action, leaving the agent without guidance on follow-up steps or expected return 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and 0 params is a baseline 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable because there are no documented parameters to explain. The schema's additionalProperties: true is not addressed, but the description is not expected to compensate for absent parameters.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Creates an invoice export request.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like Invoices_getInvoicesExports and Invoices_getInvoicesExport, which are read operations. The opening 'Catalog entry' adds noise but does not obscure the core purpose.

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 gives environmental context ('Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here') but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling alternatives are referenced, so the agent must infer routing from the verb 'Creates' and the sibling names.

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