invoice_convert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that downgrades may cause data loss and require a flag. However, it does not detail side effects, whether upgrades are lossless, or any authentication/rate limits. Moderate disclosure with gaps.

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-loading the core purpose and then a critical warning. Every word contributes; no redundancy.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the conversion types and data loss flag. However, it omits what the output format is, error handling, or success indicators. Adequate but incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'allow_data_loss' (data loss risk) and implies 'target_profile' and 'target_syntax' roles, but does not explain 'xml_content' vs 'xml_base64' choice or the default for 'target_syntax'. Partial value added.

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 tool converts ZUGFeRD or XRechnung invoices to different profiles or syntaxes, listing specific operations (profile upgrades/downgrades, ZUGFeRD↔XRechnung, CII↔UBL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like invoice_parse or invoice_validate.

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 mentions when to use allow_data_loss for downgrades, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., invoice_create). The guidance is clear but lacks a direct comparison with siblings.

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