commerce_order_to_invoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher and authentication scope, but does not disclose what the action actually does (e.g., creates an invoice), whether it is destructive, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. This is insufficient for a mutating action.

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 short with three sentences including the Args section. It front-loads the action name and key routing behavior. Each sentence adds value, though the routing sentence might be slightly tangential for selection but relevant for execution.

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 that the tool has 2 optional parameters, no required fields, and an output schema that is not described, the description should cover the return value and side effects. It only vaguely covers purpose and parameters, leaving behavioral and output aspects incomplete. The agent would not know what to expect after invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief descriptions: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This adds some meaning beyond the bare schema, but lacks detail on expected format, constraints, or examples.

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 the verb 'Run' and identifies the resource as 'order_to_invoice', which together with the tool name clearly implies converting an order to an invoice. However, it is somewhat tautological as it only says to run the action without explaining what the action does, relying on the name for full clarity.

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. Among many commerce sibling tools, the description does not specify context, prerequisites, or conditions for use. The only context given is about authentication scope ('under your JWT, tenant, and company scope'), which does not help in selecting this tool over others.

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