timeiq_invoice_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Trigger the invoice-send email', implying an outbound email is sent, but fails to mention side effects (e.g., marking invoice as sent), reversibility, or that the dry_run parameter can be used for testing.

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 sentence with no fluff, but it sacrifices necessary information. It is concise but incomplete.

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 no annotations and two parameters, the description should cover behavior and parameter purpose. It omits important context like the function of dry_run, what happens after sending, and any prerequisites. Incomplete for a low-complexity tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention id (required) or dry_run (optional) at all, leaving their meaning entirely to the schema.

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 action ('Trigger the invoice-send email'), resource (invoice), and recipient ('client's email addresses'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like timeiq_invoice_create or timeiq_invoice_update.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. For example, it does not mention that the invoice must exist or have a client email address.

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