create_invoice

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

The description mentions the draft behavior, but it incorrectly uses the parameter name 'sendTo' instead of 'sendToContacts', which could mislead the agent. No annotations exist, so the description should cover more behavioral traits (e.g., whether it sends emails, requires authentication, or modifies existing data). It fails to disclose that the tool creates a permanent record or that it may fail if client name does not match.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second adds a critical condition. No redundant information.

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?

Given 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the created invoice object), nor does it mention important contextual details like that clientName must match an existing client or that template names must exist. The schema covers parameters, but the tool description should fill gaps left by the missing output schema and annotations, which it fails to do.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the nugget about draft behavior related to sendToContacts, but it uses the wrong parameter name ('sendTo'), which reduces value. It does not add semantics for other parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool creates a new invoice in Moxie CRM. It uses a specific verb ('Create') and a clear resource ('invoice'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools (no other invoice creation tool exists).

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 key usage guideline: if sendToContacts is not provided, the invoice is created as a draft. This clarifies when the tool performs a draft vs. sent invoice. However, it does not explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., client must exist) or provide alternatives, but given the lack of sibling invoice tools, this is acceptable.

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