send_invoice

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates that the tool sends a draft invoice, implying a state change from draft to sent, but does not detail side effects (e.g., status changes, email generation), permissions needed, or idempotency. The description adds moderate transparency but lacks comprehensive disclosure.

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 and well-structured, with a clear first sentence stating the purpose and a bullet-like Args section. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity with two parameters and an output schema (presumably indicating success/failure), the description covers the essential information. It explains the required parameter and the optional send_method with its default. However, it could be more complete by clarifying the immediate effects (e.g., status change, email dispatch) and whether the action is synchronous.

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 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It provides an example for invoice_code ('[concept]0001') and lists possible values for send_method ('email' or 'mail'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not precisely define the expected format for invoice_code or restrict send_method to only those two values.

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 the action: sending an existing draft invoice to the debtor. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_invoice (creating a new invoice) and mark_invoice_paid (changing payment status) by specifying that the invoice must be a draft.

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 explains what the tool does and provides context for when to use it (when you have a draft invoice to send). It mentions the optional send_method and default behavior, giving clear usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list prerequisites beyond the invoice being a draft.

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