pennylane_create_customer_invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and openWorld=true, so safety and mutation traits are covered. The description adds the behavioral fact that the invoice is created as a draft by default, which is useful context, but it discloses nothing about permissions, side effects, or lifecycle beyond the schema's own draft default.

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 with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a create tool, though it could have been slightly more informative without bloat.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a 7-parameter creation tool in a dense invoice lifecycle family, the description omits how this relates to finalize/mark-paid siblings, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a genuine constraint not encoded in the schema: at least one invoice line is required (the invoice_lines array has no minItems). The restating of required fields mildly duplicates the schema's required list.

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 (Crée) and resource (facture client) plus a scope qualifier (brouillon par défaut), so the agent knows it produces a new invoice in draft state. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling creators/invoice lifecycle tools like update_customer_invoice or finalize_customer_invoice.

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 lists prerequisites (a customer, a date, a deadline, at least one line) which implies when the tool is applicable, and 'brouillon par défaut' hints at the draft-then-finalize workflow. However, it names no alternative and gives no explicit when-not, e.g. it never points the agent to update_customer_invoice or finalize_customer_invoice.

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