beel_set_invoice_schedule

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

Annotations already mark it as non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds valuable context: it requires a feature flag, it replaces scheduling regardless of prior existence, and it explains the two generation modes with their consequences (e.g., DRAFT leaves for review, ISSUE_AND_SEND auto-issues). It also warns about fiscal guardrails and points to a state-machine resource. This exceeds the baseline despite existing annotations.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then modes, prerequisites, endpoint, and guardrails. Each sentence earns its place, though the guardrails section is slightly verbose. Overall it is front-loaded and scannable, making it easy for an agent to extract the key facts quickly.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering idempotence and non-destructiveness, the description covers the essential behavioral rules: replacement semantics, generation modes, date constraint, feature requirement, and fiscal guardrails. It points to docs for exhaustive rules. The only missing context is the return value or error specifics, but with no output schema and the schema describing company_id behavior, this is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already provides strong descriptions for company_id (NIF behavior, 403s) and body (both fields required, no default rationale). The tool description reiterates the generation_mode semantics and date constraint, but adds little beyond the schema—except the explicit 'Both fields are required' note and the rationale for no default. With schema coverage at 67%, this is a solid baseline 3; the description doesn't meaningfully augment parameter meaning.

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-resource pair: 'Replaces the scheduling of a draft invoice, whether it had one or not, moving it to SCHEDULED.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like beel_get_invoice_schedule and beel_delete_invoice_schedule, and explains the effect on the invoice state. The two generation modes are also detailed, so an agent can select it with confidence.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose (replacing scheduling) and the prerequisite feature (scheduled_invoices). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for exclusion, but the context is unambiguous: this is the setter, versus get/delete for schedule. The pointer to beel_docs_search for exhaustive rules is helpful for edge cases.

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