create_invoice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the generic creation action and gives no information about side effects such as whether the invoice is posted, drafts vs delivered status, inventory impact, or accounting entries.

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 one-sentence description is brief and front-loaded, but it is under-specification rather than conciseness. For a tool with 21 parameters and no output schema, this level of brevity fails to provide required context.

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 definition is highly incomplete given the tool's complexity: no output schema, no annotations, no explanation of return values, required relationships, or error conditions. An agent cannot confidently construct a correct call from this 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?

Schema description coverage is only 5% (one parameter has a description), and the tool description adds nothing about parameters. The agent is left with a large schema full of $refs and enum-only fields, with no explanation of what values mean or how they interrelate.

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 states a specific verb ('Create'), a specific resource ('a sale invoice'), and the system ('Bigcapital'). This is clear and distinguishable from related tools like create_bill or create_sale_receipt, though it doesn't explicitly call out those differences.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_sale_receipt or update_invoice. It also omits prerequisites like the customer and items needing to exist, or when a sale invoice vs a receipt is appropriate.

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