beel_generate_recurring_invoice_now

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

With annotations offering only readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, the description carries full behavioral burden and delivers richly: it discloses that this is 'a fiscal act' consuming numbering from the template's series, may 'be issued and sent', and 'consumes the period that was pending' advancing next_generation. It also adds security behavior for company_id (undisclosed NIFs returning 403) and a dedicated fiscal guardrails section. No contradiction with annotations — openWorldHint=true is consistent with the disclosed side effects.

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?

Core function is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the high-value fiscal and occurrence-semantics warnings, then the when-not-to-use branch. Bold headers and short paragraphs aid scanning. It is moderately long and the guardrails section references external resources (beel://guardrails/...) that lean on a docs pipeline, but every sentence earns its place for a fiscal operation with real consequences.

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 3-param side-effecting operation with no output schema, coverage is strong: side effects, occurrence semantics, security behavior on company_id, idempotency defaults, and routing away from the wrong tool are all present. The only notable gap is that the response/return value is unspecified, which matters a bit more because there is no output schema. Even so, an agent can correctly invoke and reason about this tool.

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?

Despite 67% schema coverage (recurring_invoice_id has no schema description), the description adds deep meaning: company_id is 'the only source of context' with the BeeL-Active-Company header playing no part, plus the 403-on-unreachable behavior. idempotency_key gets an exceptionally thorough treatment covering the derived-default and the 24-hour collapse of deliberately identical operations. Only recurring_invoice_id lacks explicit parameter text, but the surrounding context ('this recurring template') makes its role clear, so the gap is minor.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Runs the generation of this recurring template immediately, out of its schedule') that goes well beyond a tautology of the name. It also distinguishes this from the creation of an extra invoice, explicitly naming the alternate path (derivations), so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like beel_create_invoice_derivation and beel_skip_recurring_invoice.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('brings the upcoming occurrence forward') and when-not-to-use ('For an extra invoice outside the calendar, do not use this endpoint') guidance, naming the alternatives (create a normal invoice, or use POST /v1/companies/{company_id}/invoices/derivations). It also clarifies how manual generation, skipping and the scheduler each consume exactly one occurrence, which directly helps the agent decide between this and beel_skip_recurring_invoice.

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