m3_create_issued_invoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a meaningful trait: the operation is queued to an async import, so the caller should not assume synchronous completion/reflection. But it does not disclose what the call returns, what happens on import failure, or any permission/prerequisite requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence places the action first and the async caveat second. There is no redundant or extraneous wording. Short but information-dense.

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 description plus detailed schema covers the main concerns for invoking the tool: parameters are fully documented and the async behavior is flagged. However, with no output schema and no annotation, the absence of any return-value or post-call behavior explanation leaves a gap. This is adequate but not complete.

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 documents every parameter with descriptions and formats. The description adds no parameter-level information. Per the baseline for high coverage, this dimension is adequate at 3.

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?

States a specific action ('Create'), a specific resource ('new issued (outgoing) invoice'), and names the target system ('Money S3'). The parenthetical 'outgoing' differentiates it from the sibling m3_create_received_invoice. The title/name is expanded rather than repeated, so this is not a tautology.

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 implies the use case: creating an outgoing invoice. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with alternatives like m3_create_received_invoice for incoming invoices or m3_issued_invoices for reading issued invoices. The usage context is clear but the exclusion/alternative guidance is left to inference.

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