commerce_order_to_invoice

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful routing and scoping context: 'Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope.' It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not elaborate on what side effects or consequences the action may trigger.

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 compact and well-structured: it states the action, gives the routing context in one sentence, and then lists the two arguments. There is no redundant filler, and the most important routing context is front-loaded.

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?

For a domain-agent action with a rich output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, but it omits critical operational context. An agent cannot determine what a valid message looks like, what structured inputs are required for order_to_invoice, or whether any prerequisites exist. The tool name implies a business flow, but the description does not provide enough to invoke it correctly.

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 schema provides only raw types, titles, and defaults, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates somewhat by explaining 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' However, the explanations are generic and do not specify what structured fields order_to_invoice expects, leaving the agent to guess the required JSON shape.

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 mostly restates the tool name: 'Run the commerce domain agent action order_to_invoice' is essentially a tautology, and no explicit business purpose (e.g., converting a sales order into an invoice) is stated. The routing detail adds technical context but does not clarify what the action accomplishes.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related sibling tools such as propose_contract_to_cash_invoice, execute_contract_to_cash_invoice, or business_create_invoice. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria for invoking this domain-agent action.

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