convert_order_to_invoice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that the corresponding invoice is generated automatically, which adds useful context. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., order status change), whether the operation is idempotent, or any permission requirements.

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 a single concise sentence with the verb and object front-loaded. Every word adds value, with no repetition or extraneous content.

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 straightforward conversion tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior. It lacks details on return values or post-conditions (e.g., what happens to the order), but is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 sole parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema as 'ID de la commande', so coverage is 100% and baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying the order must be 'validée', which is a valuable constraint not present in the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Facturer' (to invoice) and identifies the exact resource 'commande client validée' (validated customer order). This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like create_invoice or convert_proposal_to_order.

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 usage for validated orders ('commande client validée') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_invoice or how it relates to order status. The context is clear but exclusions or alternative guidance are missing.

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