Create invoice

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for explaining behavior. It only notes that an invoice 'draft' is created, which implies a non-final state, but it does not specify permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what side effects occur, or what the return value is.

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 only two short sentences, front-loads the main action, and contains no filler or redundant detail. Every word serves a clear purpose.

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 create tool with a complex nested parameter and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what fields 'invoiceData' is expected to contain, any required invoice data, or how to find it. The agent cannot safely construct a valid request from this description alone.

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 schema already states invoiceData is 'Invoice fields' (100% coverage). The description's second sentence, 'invoiceData holds the invoice fields,' merely repeats that information and adds no extra meaning about required key, structure, or validation rules.

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 uses the verb 'create' and the resource 'invoice draft', which clearly states the action and object. Saying 'draft' sets it apart from sibling tools like gambot_issue_invoice and gambot_update_invoice, making its 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of gambot_update_invoice or gambot_issue_invoice. It does not state conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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