beel_skip_recurring_invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context: it advances the generation date and explicitly states 'Nothing is issued,' clarifying the non-destructive nature. It also warns about fiscal guardrails, which gives the agent behavioral context about regulatory implications. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-sentence action summary, the endpoint, then a clearly separated guardrails warning. No redundant fluff; every sentence earns its place, and the most important information (what it does) is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is a simple skip operation with 3 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the action, the endpoint, and critical fiscal guardrails via pointer to resources. It does not describe the return value, but that may be acceptable given no output schema. The guardrails warning adds important context for safe usage, making the description reasonably complete.

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% (company_id and idempotency_key have rich descriptions, recurring_invoice_id lacks one). The description itself does not address parameters. The schema already handles most semantics, and the missing parameter is self-evident from the name and endpoint. The description adds no parameter-specific value, so the baseline 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?

The description states a precise action ('Skips the next scheduled invoice generation') with the specific resource (recurring invoice) and a key consequence ('Nothing is issued'). It clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from likely siblings like beel_generate_recurring_invoice_now, which would have the opposite effect.

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 implies usage (when you want to skip a generation) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., generate now, set status). It includes a warning about fiscal guardrails and points to docs, but lacks explicit exclusion or alternative scenarios. Some context is provided, but no direct 'use this when' or 'instead of X' guidance.

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