client_invoice_upload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'upload,' implying a write operation, but fails to disclose important behaviors: whether the file is copied or moved, if there are size limits, if it overwrites existing files, or if the operation is synchronous. The description does not contradict any annotations since none exist, but it is insufficiently transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core action and resource.

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 simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description is still inadequate. It lacks details on file path conventions, allowable file types, size limits, and expected behavior on success/failure. The sibling tool client_invoice_upload_show is available but not referenced, missing an opportunity to guide the agent on post-upload verification.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the action. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters sufficiently.

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 (upload), the target (file to a client invoice), and the source (filesystem). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like client_invoice_upload_show, which handles viewing uploads, and client_invoice_create, which creates invoices. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or constraints. For example, it doesn't mention that the invoice must already exist or that the file path must be absolute (though the schema does). There is no context about file size limits, allowed formats, or error handling.

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