Messaging_sendInvoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It reveals only that a message with an invoice is sent and that it runs elsewhere; it does not disclose prerequisites, side effects, recipient handling, idempotency, or expected response behavior. This is minimal for a tool that triggers an external messaging side effect.

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 concise at about 18 words and the main action is stated clearly. The opening 'Catalog entry' fragment adds little, but the definition is not bloated and the key purpose is front and center.

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?

Despite the simple zero-property schema, the definition lacks enough operational context for confident invocation: no mention of required order or buyer context, message content expectations, or return behavior. The environment caveat is helpful but does not make the entry 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?

The schema declares zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to enrich; the baseline of 4 applies. The additionalProperties: true default is not explained, but with no defined parameters this is not a significant gap.

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 action: 'Sends a message providing the buyer an invoice,' naming the verb, object, and recipient clearly. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the purpose is understandable on its own.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as DeliveryByAmazon_submitInvoice, ShipmentInvoicing_submitInvoice, or other Messaging_* actions. The only contextual hint, 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here,' says where the tool executes, not when it should be selected.

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