create_invoice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the 'draft' status, but does not disclose side effects, required client existence, validation rules, permissions, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It conveys the essential purpose and state without redundancy, earning the highest conciseness score.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters, a nested array, and no output schema, the description offers little beyond the schema. It omits behavioral context like what 'draft' implies for the invoice lifecycle, whether line items are required, how the client is referenced, or what response to expect. The schema covers parameter naming, but the overall tool context is 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 coverage is 100% with each parameter already described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only highlights the client relationship. Since the schema fully documents parameters, the description does not need to compensate.

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 'Create a new draft invoice for a client' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the tool's action and output state ('draft'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_invoice_from_time or convert_quote_to_invoice, 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 implies usage—creating a draft invoice from scratch—but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_invoice_from_time or convert_quote_to_invoice. No exclusions or context are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the 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.