Create Invoice

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, which aligns with creating a draft. The description adds specific behavioral context: the invoice is created as a draft, and currency/language/VAT are auto-filled from the EZ@Work profile. This goes beyond the 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 two sentences long, with the primary action in the first sentence and supplementary detail in the second. No wasted words.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description adequately covers the tool's core behavior. It doesn't repeat schema details, but it adds the essential auto-detection information. Minor gaps like payment terms are already in schema, so no further description needed.

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?

While the schema fully describes the three parameters, the description adds crucial context by explaining that currency, language, and VAT/tax rate are auto-detected and should not be specified. This prevents the agent from attempting to pass these as parameters and clarifies why they are absent from 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 opens with 'Create a draft invoice,' which clearly states the action and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on invoice creation, while siblings handle clients, projects, and time entries. The auto-detection note further clarifies scope.

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 implicitly signals when to use the tool (when creating a draft invoice) and clarifies that no currency/language/VAT specification is needed. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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