Orders Invoices Create

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent open-world call, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds the required OAuth scope and API version. It stays silent on the traits that matter for this specific call, notably that non-idempotent repeated posts may duplicate invoices and what happens when the order is already invoiced or invalid.

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?

Four short lines with the purpose front-loaded, then endpoint, scope, and version as scannable metadata. "Body per the API reference" is low-information filler but cheap in length, so structure is not harmed.

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 mutation endpoint with no output schema and an opaque free-form body, the definition leaves the agent unable to construct a valid call without consulting external docs it may not have. It should at least sketch the invoice object's expected keys or state what the response confirms.

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?

The description only says "Body per the API reference," which adds no meaning beyond the schema. The schema's own coverage is nominal: the invoice parameter is an unconstrained object described as "fields per the API reference," so the real payload shape is documented nowhere the agent can see. This is exactly the case where the description should compensate and does not.

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 and resource ("Attach an invoice to an order") plus the concrete endpoint POST /orders/{id}/invoices, so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not address how it differs from nearby siblings such as tiendanube_external_invoices_create or tiendanube_orders_invoices_list, leaving a small ambiguity for a sibling-heavy namespace.

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 required scope (write_orders) is a genuine usage precondition, which is more than nothing. However, there is no statement of when to use this versus the external-invoice or invoice-list siblings, nor any exclusion or sequencing guidance (e.g. whether the invoice must exist first).

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