create_invoice

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds value by warning to confirm with the user, and by detailing the structure of invoice_lines and charges, including possible enum values for tax and payment methods. This provides behavioral context beyond the mere destructive flag.

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 relatively concise given the complexity, starting with a warning and then listing parameter details in a bullet-like format. It is front-loaded with the key instruction. Minor verbosity from repeated examples, but overall efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. However, with 14 parameters and complex nested objects, the description only covers a subset (invoice_lines and charges). Required field 'issued' and optional fields like customer, description, date are left unexplained, making the description 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 explains the structure of invoice_lines and charges, and lists allowed values for sell_type, tax, tax_regime, tax_subjection_code, and payment_method. However, many parameters (issued, customer, date, etc.) are not described, leaving gaps.

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 'Crea una factura' (creates an invoice) and includes a warning to confirm with the user. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_expense, create_income, etc., which create different entity types, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 instructs to confirm with the user before executing, which is a safety guideline. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like create_document or update_invoice. The context is implied by the tool name and sibling list.

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