Create Recurring Invoice

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: template creation (not immediate invoice) and scheduling ('first invoice instance generated on next scheduled run date'). Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive, so the description adds scheduling context without contradiction.

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 bilingual, doubling length without essential additional info. While the English part is concise, the Spanish repetition adds redundancy. Still, key information is front-loaded, but not maximally efficient.

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 an output schema (not provided but indicated), the description adequately covers creation behavior and scheduling. It doesn't address error cases or active status, but for a template creation tool with 100% schema coverage, it is 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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds limited value beyond the schema. It reiterates frequency options and provides an example, but the schema already describes all parameters clearly. Baseline 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 clearly states 'Create a new recurring invoice template,' specifying the verb (create), resource (recurring invoice template), and key fields (frequency, client, line items, start date). It distinguishes from one-time invoice creation via sibling tools like create_invoice and update_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?

The description provides clear context: specify frequency, client, line items, and optional start date, with an example. It implies use for recurring billing but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. Still, the context is well communicated.

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