propose_contract_to_cash_invoice

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description adds the critical behavioral fact that the tool 'performs no provider write' — essential context, since the name alone invites the assumption that it creates an invoice in QuickBooks. The 'replay' option corroborates idempotentHint=true, and 'exact' signals the payload must match source data precisely. readOnlyHint=false is consistent: the tool creates an internal approval record without writing to the provider, so there is no annotation contradiction.

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?

One sentence with two dense clauses, and every element earns its place: the create/replay verb pair, the 'exact invoice approval' scope, and the crucial 'no provider write' caveat are all front-loaded. There is zero filler, redundancy, or repetition of what the schema or annotations already state.

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 complex tool with a large nested schema and numerous contract-to-cash siblings (execute, register, attach, start_contract_to_cash_run), the description is thin on workflow sequencing: it never explains what happens after approval, which tool performs the eventual provider write, or when replay is warranted. The output schema covers return values and annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness, so the gaps are confined to workflow context — but those gaps are genuine for correct tool selection.

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 carries the burden, but it adds nothing: company_ref, project_ref, and request are entirely unexplained at the top level. The word 'exact' weakly suggests the request payload must faithfully mirror the source contract data, but no parameter formats, sources, or relationships are given. The $defs inside the schema carry descriptions, but the tool description itself does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific action ('Create or replay') and resource ('exact invoice approval'), situating the tool at the approval/proposal stage of the contract-to-cash flow. The qualifier 'this performs no provider write' differentiates it from sibling execution tools like execute_contract_to_cash_invoice and register_contract_to_cash_invoice_issued. It stops short of 5 because it never explicitly names a sibling to disambiguate against.

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 implies the when: use it to create a new approval or replay an existing one when the agent must not write to the provider. But it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives — the routing to execute_contract_to_cash_invoice for the actual provider write is left to inference. Prerequisites such as a prior contract-to-cash run are also unstated, so an agent must infer the intended usage context.

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