External Invoices Create

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

Annotations already declare the write/destructive/idempotency profile, yet the description adds genuinely non-derivable context: the exact HTTP route, the required write_orders scope, and an 'unstable' API-version warning. It does not describe what happens on duplicate fiscal keys or what the response contains, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three short lines with zero filler: the action statement first, then HTTP route, scope and version as scannable metadata. Every line carries information an agent needs.

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 7-parameter mutation with a nested additional_fields object and no output schema, the description covers endpoint, auth scope and stability but omits selection guidance versus sibling invoice tools and any note on what a successful attachment returns. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and every property (key, xml, number, series, issued_at, additional_fields) is documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as format constraints on the 44-digit key or how additional_fields merge, so it sits at the baseline of 3.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Attach') and resource ('external fiscal invoice, NFe/CAE') plus the target ('to an order'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tiendanube_orders_invoices_create (internal invoices) and tiendanube_external_invoices_update. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so not a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of tiendanube_orders_invoices_create or tiendanube_external_invoices_update. The only qualifier, 'unstable API', warns about reliability rather than telling the agent which tool or which situation calls for this one.

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