Run Recurring Invoice Now

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

Adds key behavioral detail: 'The generated invoice is created as a draft; review and send separately.' Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so this informs the agent of the non-destructive write operation. Bilingual repetition does not detract.

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?

Front-loaded with key English sentence, followed by Spanish translation. Every sentence provides value despite bilingual length. No fluff.

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 the low complexity (2 params, output schema exists), the description covers trigger action, draft creation, and usage scenarios. No critical gaps.

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%, but the description adds an example (templateId='rec_abc123') and indirectly explains draftOnly by stating draft behavior. This enhances understanding beyond schema descriptions.

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 the verb 'trigger' and the resource 'immediate generation of the next invoice instance from a recurring template'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_recurring_invoice and pause_recurring_invoice by explicitly mentioning manual triggering.

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?

Provides explicit scenarios: 'billing ahead of schedule or recovering from a missed automated run'. Does not enumerate alternatives, but context is clear.

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