Convert estimate to invoice

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: deposits paid carry over to the new invoice, and the new invoiceId is returned. It stops short of saying whether the source estimate is modified or left intact, and does not warn that repeated calls will create duplicate invoices.

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 clauses, both load-bearing, with the transformation rule and the return value front-loaded. Nothing is wasted.

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 conversion tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the essential side effect (deposit carryover) and the return shape. Only the fate of the source estimate and duplicate-call risk are left unstated.

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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the burden. The description adds no format, source, or constraint detail about estimateId, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create an invoice from an estimate') plus the key transformation rule (deposits carry over). This clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like wave_create_invoice and wave_clone_invoice without needing to name them.

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 conversion framing implies when to use it — when an estimate should become an invoice — but there is no explicit when-not guidance versus wave_create_invoice or wave_clone_estimate, and no prerequisites such as estimate status requirements.

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