teamleader_invoice_book

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the action ('finalize') but does not mention that booking is likely irreversible, that the invoice must be in draft state, or any permission requirements. For a mutation that changes the invoice's lifecycle, this lack of cautionary context is a notable gap.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and clarifies the meaning of 'book' with a parenthetical. There is no filler or redundant information, and the key verb is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple, and the schema fully documents its two parameters. However, the description lacks important details about the finalization process, such as irreversibility or prerequisite state, which are important for a state-changing operation with no output schema to clarify the result. It is minimally sufficient but not fully contextualized.

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 schema description covers 100% of the parameters (id = Invoice UUID, on = Booking date), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameters, but it doesn't need to since the schema already provides complete definitions.

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 uses a specific verb ('book') and a clear resource ('draft invoice') with a clarifying parenthetical that equates booking with finalizing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like teamleader_invoice_draft (which creates a draft) and teamleader_invoice_send (which sends an invoice).

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 implies the tool is for converting a draft invoice into a finalized state, which gives clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools, but the parenthetical and the phrase 'draft invoice' strongly signal the appropriate scenario. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the intent is not ambiguous.

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