Clone invoice

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

Annotations already establish that this is non-read-only, non-destructive, and non-idempotent. The description usefully adds that the result is a 'new draft,' implying the source invoice remains unchanged, but it does not say what fields are copied, whether the draft is editable or sendable, or that repeated calls may create multiple drafts.

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 short sentence that front-loads the action and states the outcome. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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 one-parameter clone operation, the essential call mechanics are covered by the schema and annotations, and 'new draft' communicates the output state. However, an agent choosing among many invoice tools receives no information about what is copied or how this differs from wave_create_invoice, leaving a meaningful selection gap.

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?

There is only one parameter, and its schema description covers 100% of the field, including type and required status. The description does not add selection guidance or formatting detail for invoiceId, so it meets the baseline without adding meaning beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('Copy') and resource ('invoice') and states the resulting state ('new draft'), so the core action is clear. It does not differentiate from nearby tools such as wave_create_invoice or wave_clone_estimate, so tool selection still relies partly on the 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?

The phrase 'into a new draft' implies this is for duplicating an existing invoice rather than creating one from scratch. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or named alternative such as wave_create_invoice or wave_clone_estimate.

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