Create QuickBooks Invoice

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

Annotations already provide important behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds some context by mentioning the return format ('Created invoice details including Id, DocNumber, and TotalAmt'), which helps the agent understand what to expect. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses bullet points for readability. It's appropriately sized for a creation tool with 4 parameters. However, the 'Args' section could be more concise by integrating with the schema instead of duplicating information, and the purpose statement is somewhat basic.

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 tool's complexity (a write operation with 4 parameters), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return values. With annotations providing safety hints and no output schema, the description's inclusion of return details is valuable. However, it lacks context about error handling, validation rules, or integration with sibling tools.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description's 'Args' section essentially repeats what's in the schema without adding meaningful semantic context (e.g., explaining what a 'customer_id' represents beyond 'QuickBooks Customer ID' or providing examples of line item descriptions). The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the specific action ('Create a new invoice') and resource ('in QuickBooks Online'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like qbo_list_invoices (which lists invoices) and other list tools. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 versus alternatives. While it's clear this creates invoices, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing customer), when not to use it, or how it differs from other invoice-related operations that might exist. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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