Send an existing QuickBooks Online invoice by email to the customer, either to the address stored on the invoice or to a specified override email.
Send an invoice by email. The invoice must already exist in QuickBooks Online.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Override email address to send to (optional, uses invoice BillEmail if not specified) | ||
| invoiceId | Yes | The unique invoice ID to send |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the precondition that the invoice must exist, but does not mention side effects (e.g., marking invoice as sent), error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits. More behavioral context is needed 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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The critical action and precondition are stated directly.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should explain what the tool returns or what happens after sending. It lacks any mention of return values, confirmation, or error states. For a send action, this is insufficient for an agent to understand the full 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 coverage is 100% (both parameters described in the schema). The description repeats 'email override' but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'send an invoice by email' and the resource 'invoice', distinguishing it from other invoice-related siblings like create, get, list. Specific verb+resource combination.
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 implicitly indicates the invoice must already exist, providing a precondition, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., if invoice not created yet, use qbo_invoices_create first). No exclusion criteria or context for the optional email parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.