invoice_create

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds that it sends via Peppol/portal and requires CompanyId, which are useful behavioral contexts beyond the annotations. It does not conflict with annotations.

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 concise with two focused sentences. The first sentence conveys the core purpose, and the second provides a critical requirement. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 not explain the return value (e.g., created invoice ID). It also omits prerequisites like needing an existing company for CompanyId. However, it adequately covers the required input structure, preventing basic misuse.

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 100% for both parameters. The description repeats the requirement for CompanyId in ublDto, which is already in the schema, and does not add new meaning for embedPdf. Given high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create and send') and the resource ('new invoice') via specific channels ('Peppol/portal'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like invoice_get or invoice_search, which have different purposes.

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 when to use the tool (to create and send an invoice) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings. No exclusions or context-based recommendations are given.

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