send_invoice_email

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags this tool as destructive. The description adds a warning emoji and confirmation instruction, which aligns with the annotation. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as side effects on invoice status, permissions needed, or email delivery guarantees.

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 very concise (one line), which is good, but it lacks structure and is insufficient for a tool with 9 parameters. Important information about parameters and return values is missing, making it under-specified.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no parameter descriptions, a destructive hint, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., invoice existence), return value, or potential side effects.

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 has 0% description coverage, meaning the description must explain parameter meanings. However, the description does not mention any parameter, leaving the agent to infer from names only. Parameters like 'cc_me', 'show_card_payment', and 'include_pdf' are not self-explanatory.

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 action ('Envía la factura por email') and the object (invoice). It is distinct from sibling tools, which are CRUD or other operations on invoices. The warning emoji and instruction to confirm further clarify the tool's 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 explicitly instructs to confirm with the user before executing, providing a clear usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_invoice_pdf or get_invoice_public_link), though the context implies it is for direct email sending.

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