timeiq_invoice_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions creation of a draft invoice but fails to note side effects (e.g., whether it creates a persistent record immediately), required permissions, or the handling of the 'dry_run' parameter. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, the extreme brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail, making it more under-specified than concise.

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 the lack of output schema and the presence of six parameters (two required), the description fails to provide sufficient context. It does not explain the meaning of return values, the effect of 'dry_run', date formats, or any validation rules, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the six parameters, including key ones like 'client_id', 'invoice_number', or 'dry_run'. The description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema provides, leaving the agent to guess parameter meanings and constraints.

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 'Create a new draft invoice' clearly specifies the verb (create) and resource (draft invoice), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'timeiq_invoice_get' or 'timeiq_invoice_send'. However, it lacks additional context that could further differentiate it from other create tools in the sibling list.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'timeiq_invoice_send' or 'timeiq_invoice_update'. It does not mention prerequisites, required states, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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