Duplicate Invoice

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

Describes behavioral traits: copies data, strips identifiers and timestamps, sets status to draft with current date. Annotations only indicate non-readOnly, non-destructive, etc., which the description aligns with. No contradictions. Could clarify that original invoice remains unchanged, but it's implied.

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?

English portion is four sentences, Spanish repeats the same info, making it slightly longer than necessary. However, the core information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. Still concise enough for a bilingual tool.

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?

Covers the full duplication flow, including what gets reset and default date. No output schema exists, so description could mention return value (e.g., created invoice object), but the operation is clearly explained. Acceptable for the tool complexity.

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 provides full descriptions for all three parameters. The description reinforces the default behavior (today's date) but does not add new semantic details beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% 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?

Clearly states the tool duplicates an existing invoice, enumerating what is copied (line items, client data, tax rate, notes) and what is stripped. Distinguishes from create_invoice by specifying it works from an existing invoice, making it apt for recurring invoices.

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?

Explicitly suggests use for recurring invoices, providing a practical example. Does not contrast with alternatives like create_invoice, but the use case is well implied. Slightly less than perfect due to lack of explicit when-not-to-use.

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