client_invoice_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a draft client invoice' without describing side effects (e.g., status creation, idempotency, return behavior). The minimal text does not inform the agent of important traits like whether duplicate creation is allowed or what happens after creation.

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 is front-loaded with key action and resource. It avoids verbosity, though it could be slightly expanded to include more context (e.g., resulting status). The structure is efficient.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain the overall workflow (e.g., draft status vs final), nor does it reference required parameters or highlight important constraints. The schema covers individual fields, but the description lacks holistic context.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what is already in the schema, but does not harm. It does not enhance understanding of parameter relationships or constraints.

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 it creates a draft client invoice, specifying the action (create), resource (client invoice), and key components (client and line items). This sufficiently identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling operations like client_invoice_finalize or client_invoice_update, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., client_invoice_update for editing, client_invoice_finalize for finalizing). There are no examples or conditional uses given, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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