fiken_create_invoice_draft_from_order_confirmation

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

The description only states 'Creates', which aligns with readOnlyHint=false. However, it fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the order confirmation is marked as invoiced, required permissions, or side effects. With minimal annotations, more context is needed.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it is too short and lacks detail, bordering on under-specification. It earns a 3 for being neither verbose nor efficient.

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 many sibling tools (e.g., fiken_create_invoice_draft, fiken_create_invoice) and the lack of output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the relationship between order confirmation and invoice draft or what to expect after invocation.

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 single parameter 'confirmationId' is not explained. Schema coverage is 0%. The description does not clarify that this is the ID of an order confirmation, leaving ambiguity. The tool name implies it, but explicit documentation would help.

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 'Creates an invoice draft from an order confirmation' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like fiken_create_invoice_draft which creates a blank draft. The purpose is 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., order confirmation must exist) or workflow context. Sibling tools exist for creating invoice drafts from scratch, but no comparison is given.

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