create_invoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key behavior: the invoice is created as a draft if sendTo is absent. However, it omits other important behaviors such as validation of client/template names, sending side-effects, or the structure of the response. The single disclosed behavior adds some value but is incomplete.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by a conditional behavior. No redundant words or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema. The description is too sparse to provide a complete operational picture. It only mentions the draft behavior, leaving out the overall flow, prerequisites, expected return, and interactions with other entities like templates or existing clients. Given the complexity, this is insufficient.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description does not add any parameter meaning beyond the schema and, in fact, introduces 'sendTo' which is not a parameter in the input schema (the schema has 'sendToContacts' and 'sendInvoice'). This inconsistency could confuse an agent and reduces the description's value.

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 clearly states 'Create a new invoice in Moxie CRM', which is a specific verb + resource. It uniquely identifies the tool's function and is distinct from sibling tools like search_payable_invoices. The draft condition adds useful scoping.

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 gives one implicit usage guideline: if sendTo is not provided, the invoice becomes a draft. However, it does not mention alternative tools, prerequisites like client existence, or when to choose this over other invoice-related tools. It provides minimal contextual guidance.

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