beel_create_recurring_invoice

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: the generation cadence (monthly on day_of_month), the start_date past-acceptance behavior with no back-dating, and explicit warnings about fiscal guardrails. It also mentions the endpoint for clarity. While it does not detail return format or rate limits, it substantially improves on the annotations' limited disclosure.

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 structured and front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, then covers the start_date nuance, endpoint, and guardrails in a logical order. It uses bullet-style pointers for fiscal rules and ends with a pointer to exhaustive docs. While it includes some redundancy (e.g., the start_date nuance appears in schema too), it is concise for the complexity and not padded.

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 tool with many parameters and complex fiscal rules, the description covers the essential behavior: what it creates, how recurrence works, the start_date edge case, and critical guardrails with pointers to resources. It does not mention idempotency behavior (but schema covers it) or output format, but given the schema richness and the presence of a docs pointer, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it adequately.

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 67%, so the schema already documents many parameters (start_date, frequency, verifactu_enabled, idempotency_key, etc.). The description reinforces the start_date behavior but adds little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. It does not explain the flat tax fields (handled in schema) or otherwise compensate for undocumented parameters. This is at the baseline for good schema coverage.

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 verb ('Creates'), the resource ('recurring invoice template'), and the scope ('under this company (NIF)'). It also specifies the key components (template data, recurrence) and explicitly contrasts with direct invoice creation by mentioning 'template' and 'recurrence'. This distinguishes it from siblings like beel_create_invoice and beel_create_recurring_invoice_derivation without needing to inspect schemas.

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 explains when to use it (to set up a recurring invoice template) and includes a critical usage nuance: past start_dates are accepted but never back-generate. It also directs to guardrails and documentation for deeper rules. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., beel_generate_recurring_invoice_now for immediate generation), so the 'when not' part is left implicit.

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