teamleader_invoices_book

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

The description explicitly calls out the side effect ('books the draft into accounting and assigns a number') and notes it is 'not freely reversible'. This is valuable behavioral context especially since no annotations are provided. It could further disclose permissions or edge cases, but it covers the key irreversibility aspect.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a clear side-effect warning. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main action, side effect, and irreversibility. It lacks explicit return value information, but the operation is straightforward enough that this is a minor gap.

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 input schema already provides 100% meaningful descriptions for both parameters ('id' and 'on'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to.

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 uses a specific verb ('Book') and resource ('draft invoice'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like send or register payment. It also explains the outcome (assign a number), which aligns with the tool's name and purpose.

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 the tool is for draft invoices and books them into accounting, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives (e.g., not for sending or registering payments). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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