stripe_create_invoice

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful governance behavior: the operation is bound to a governed connector authority, the declared read/write effect is verified by Spring, and a write requires an approved platform task UUID via approval_ref. This is useful context the annotations alone do not convey.

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: an opening identification line, a routing constraint, then a clean parameter list. It earns its place without excessive prose, though a single functional sentence about the invoice-creation behavior would improve it.

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 7-parameter connector wrapper with zero schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to construct the arguments JSON, whether project_id/project_ref/connector_account_ref are effectively required despite being schema-optional, how the approval flow starts, or what effect values to use. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly from the description alone.

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 has no parameter descriptions, so the Args list adds value by labeling project_id, project_ref, connector_account_ref, idempotency_key, effect, and approval_ref. However, the most important parameter, arguments, is only described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which is circular and gives the agent no Stripe-specific payload guidance. Allowed values for effect are also not specified.

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 identifies the operation as creating an invoice through the Stripe connector, and gives the platform-equivalent name stripe.create_invoice. It is clear enough about the verb and resource, though it leans on the tool name rather than stating 'creates a Stripe invoice' in plain language.

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 imposes a routing constraint ('Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stripe_get_invoice, stripe_list_invoices, business_create_invoice, or other connector invoice tools. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement.

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