ghl_create_invoice

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('create') without revealing side effects, required permissions, return values, idempotency, or validation behavior. This is comparable to under-specified mutation tools.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and object. It contains zero wasted words and is as concise as possible.

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 tool has 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, but the description is just one sentence. It does not explain required fields, item structure, currency denominations, or what the response will contain. This is significantly under-specified for a create operation with this complexity.

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 only 38%. The description does not mention any parameters or compensate for the low coverage. Several properties (contactId, currency, discount, invoiceNumber, title) lack schema descriptions, and the description adds no additional meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('invoice') and identifies the target ('for a contact'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ghl_void_invoice, ghl_send_invoice, and ghl_record_invoice_payment.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ghl_get_invoices, ghl_send_invoice, or ghl_record_invoice_payment. There are no mentions of prerequisites (e.g., contact must exist) or cases where another tool would be more appropriate.

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