create_invoice

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

The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the generated PDF is returned attached to the response, which explains the return channel given there is no output schema. However, for a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write that produces a legally binding document, it says nothing about permanence (issuance cannot be undone; only reversal exists) or required authentication.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the return artifact disclosed immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 rich schema compensates for most of the tool's complexity and the description covers the return artifact, but for a 34-parameter, multi-variant invoice-issuance tool it omits which variant path to take and what constraints apply (currency/exchange-rate coupling, required item totals, correction dependencies).

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 34 parameters are self-documenting and the baseline is 3. The description's enumeration of invoice types gives indirect meaning to the proforma/advanceInvoice/correctionInvoice booleans but adds no format, default, or dependency detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Issue a new invoice') and enumerates the four invoice variants it covers (normal, proforma, advance, correction), which maps directly onto the proforma/advanceInvoice/correctionInvoice flags. It does not differentiate against siblings such as create_receipt or reverse_invoice, which is the one remaining ambiguity.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says to prefer create_receipt for receipts, or to use reverse_invoice rather than issuing a correction invoice, and no prerequisites are given (e.g. that a correction needs an existing invoice number). Only the implied 'use this to issue invoices' is conveyed.

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