teamleader_invoice_send

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without explaining side effects (e.g., whether invoice status changes to 'sent', email deliverability, or idempotency). This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 with no redundancy or irrelevant details. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple email-sending tool, the schema covers all parameters, but the description omits context about invoice state requirements (e.g., must be booked) and post-send effects. It meets the minimum viability but lacks helpful context for a tool with sibling operations.

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 covers all 4 parameters with clear descriptions (id, to, body, subject), so the description doesn't need to add param meaning. Baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no extra parameter semantics.

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 ('Send') and resource ('invoice') plus medium ('via email'), clearly distinguishing it from other invoice tools like draft, book, or delete. It unambiguously states the tool's function.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as teamleader_invoice_draft or teamleader_invoice_book. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., invoice must be booked) or context about email sending rules.

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