create_b2c_invoice_named

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool creates an invoice and returns an API response, lacking details about side effects, idempotency, permissions, error handling, or any constraints. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action. However, it could benefit from a brief list of key parameters or behavior to aid understanding, but it remains concise.

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 tool has 24 parameters, 18 required, no output schema, and is one of many invoice-related siblings, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the nested field format, what the API response contains, how items are structured, or any prerequisites. The tool's complexity demands richer description.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond mentioning 'named nested field format', which does not clarify parameter usage. Thus, baseline score of 3 is 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?

Description clearly states the tool creates a B2C invoice using a specific named nested field format (C0401N), distinguishing it from the plain create_b2c_invoice sibling. The verb 'Create' and resource 'B2C invoice' are 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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_b2c_invoice or the allowance tools. Usage context is implied by the name and format mention, but no direct guidance on when-not-to-use or prerequisites is provided.

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