save_invoice_request

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but description only says 'Create', which typically implies non-destructive. The description also fails to mention that the tool can update existing requests (via non-zero inv_id). This contradicts annotations and omits important behavioral traits.

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?

Description is short (one sentence) but includes a Georgian translation that adds no value for most users. It could be more concise and front-load the key action.

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?

No output schema, and description does not explain return values or behavior (e.g., what happens on success/failure, whether it is idempotent). For a tool with 6 parameters and destructive nature, more context is needed.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. Description adds no additional meaning beyond 'reminder' concept, which is already vague. Baseline score due to high schema coverage.

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?

Description states 'Create an invoice issuance reminder for seller', which gives a verb and resource. However, the term 'reminder' may be misleading; the tool actually saves an invoice request (create or update). It does not distinguish from sibling save tools like save_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as save_invoice, del_invoice_request, etc. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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