Create invoice from quote

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the created object is a draft (not a finalized invoice), it is linked to the quote and its job, the due date is derived from payment terms, partial invoices inherit the quote's tax rate, and part modes are plan-gated. These are exactly the lifecycle and entitlement facts annotations do not convey.

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 the core action and scope, then a dense but purposeful sentence enumerating modes. The mode enumeration is a run-on list, but every clause maps to a real enum value or constraint, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining the resulting state (draft, linked to quote and job, derived due date). It never states what identifier or payload is returned, which an agent needs in order to chain into send_invoice, but otherwise covers the call fully.

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 75% and the mode enum has no per-value documentation in the schema, so the description carries real weight: it defines what each of the five modes does and clarifies that `lines` holds 1-based positions and `amount` means a percent or a tax-inclusive figure depending on mode.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (draft invoice from a quote) and immediately scopes it: entire quote or a part of it. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as create_quote, create_job, and send_invoice, and even anchors to the equivalent UI action (Create Invoice > From Quote).

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?

Gives a clear precondition (quote must be approved or accepted), a routing constraint (part modes require a Pro plan with progress invoicing), and an explicit next step (the invoice stays a draft until send_invoice). The agent knows both when to call it and what to call afterwards.

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