Create invoice

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

The annotations already mark this as non-read-only and non-idempotent, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: it posts a receivable with real accounting effect, bills the customer on each call, lets QuickBooks assign DocNumber and totals, and derives due date from payment terms unless overridden. This is substantive behavioral disclosure that helps the agent understand consequences.

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 dense but efficient, with no filler. Each sentence earns its place by covering prerequisites, side effects, idempotency, line requirements, and QuickBooks-assigned defaults. Important behavioral information is front-loaded before secondary details.

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 creation tool with nested inputs and significant accounting impact, the description covers the key prerequisites, side effects, non-idempotency, and default behaviors. Since an output schema exists, not describing the return payload is acceptable. The agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds useful param-level guidance beyond the schema: every line needs an amount, a line without an item_id falls back to the default sales item, and customer_id must reference an already-existing customer. This meaningfully supplements the structured 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create an invoice for an existing customer with one or more line items.' It clearly differentiates from the many sibling invoice tools (update_invoice, delete_invoice, list_invoices) by stating creation scope and the requirement of an existing customer.

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 explicitly says to use it after resolving the customer Id via search_customers or create_customer, and it warns against calling it twice because it is not idempotent. It gives clear invocation context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as update_invoice for later corrections.

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