shopify_send_draft_order_invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the email contains a secure checkout link and the `to` parameter can be omitted based on draft-order state. It also clarifies the `effect` parameter's verification role.

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 efficiently structured: one sentence for the core operation, followed by a clean bulleted argument list with no fluff or repetition. Every line earns its place.

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?

The description provides the key operational context (what the email contains, when to omit `to`) and documents all parameters. Output schema covers return values. Minor gaps like error conditions or when the draft order might be ineligible are not covered, but the description is sufficiently complete for correct 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 carry all parameter meaning. It does so by defining each of the 10 parameters with concise, useful labels: recipient override, subject, custom message, project IDs, refs, idempotency key, effect verification, and approval ref. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('Shopify draft-order invoice email') and adds the key behavioral detail that the email contains a secure checkout link. It clearly distinguishes this from the many other shopify_* tools by naming the exact action.

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 provides a concrete usage guideline: omit `to` when the draft order already has an attached customer or email. It implicitly tells the agent when to use the tool (to send an invoice email), though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. This is adequate since no sibling performs this exact action.

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