paymenter_create_invoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about side effects such as whether the invoice is emailed to the customer, whether inventory/credit is touched, or what permissions are required. Only the mutation intent is implied by "Create".

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is efficient. It is arguably undersized for a mutation tool with four parameters and no annotations, but nothing 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?

For a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits what the caller needs: permissions, whether the response returns the created invoice, and any downstream effects. Required parameters are left to the schema, and no behavioral context is provided.

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%, so the schema already documents user_id, currency_code, due_at, and the status enum. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource ("Create a new invoice"), which is accurate and unambiguous about the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as paymenter_create_invoice_item, paymenter_update_invoice, or paymenter_create_order, so the agent gets no explicit routing signal.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like paymenter_create_order or paymenter_create_invoice_item, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., user must exist). The agent must infer all usage context from the name alone.

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