client_invoice_send

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects (e.g., marking invoice as sent), and prerequisites (invoice must be finalized). It only repeats parameter details from the schema, missing crucial behavioral context for a sending action.

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 sentence that efficiently lists required and optional parameters. It is concise without being too sparse, but could be slightly improved by front-loading the prerequisite condition (finalized).

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what happens after sending (e.g., email delivery, invoice status change) and prerequisites. It only covers parameter requirements, leaving the user uninformed about the tool's complete behavior.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description restates that send_to requires one or more emails and copy_to_self defaults to true, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. It does not clarify format, constraints, or usage tips.

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 the action ('Send a finalized client invoice via email') and distinguishes from sibling tools that handle creation, finalization, cancellation, etc. The verb 'send' combined with the resource 'finalized client invoice' and method 'email' leaves no ambiguity.

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 implicitly requires a finalized invoice but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like client_invoice_finalize or when not to send (e.g., if already sent). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the requirement field.

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