qbo_invoices_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the action. It does not disclose that creating an invoice does not send it (qbo_invoices_send exists for that), that CustomerRef and Line are required, or anything about permissions, side effects, or the returned record.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficiently sized, though the terseness reflects under-specification rather than genuine optimization for a tool with nested objects and no annotations.

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 creation tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It omits the required fields, the create-vs-send distinction, and any return-value expectations, leaving the agent to infer critical behavior.

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 every one of the 7 parameters already has its own description including format examples. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb and resource ("Create a new Invoice record"), which distinguishes it from the sibling read/mutate tools like qbo_invoices_get, qbo_invoices_list, and qbo_invoices_update. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent creation tools such as qbo_estimates_create or qbo_sales_receipts_create beyond the resource name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent learns nothing about when this tool is preferable to qbo_estimates_create or qbo_sales_receipts_create, or how it relates to qbo_invoices_send.

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