m3_create_received_invoice

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

No structured annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds useful non-obvious context by noting the invoice is 'written to async import queue,' implying asynchronous/eventual processing rather than synchronous creation. It does not disclose permissions, validation errors, or what a successful call returns.

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?

Two short sentences with no redundancy; the primary action and resource are front-loaded, followed by the async-queue caveat. Every phrase earns its place.

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 operation with an entirely described schema, the description covers the core action and the non-obvious async behavior. It does not explain how results are returned or confirm success, but no output schema is declared and the schema fully documents parameters.

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%; every parameter (dates, items, codes, definitionShortcut) is already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 an explicit create verb, target resource ('received (incoming) invoice'), and the writing mechanism ('async import queue'). The parenthetical '(incoming)' plus the tool name clearly differentiates it from m3_create_issued_invoice.

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 establishes that this tool is for incoming invoices, which gives an agent a clear basis to prefer it over m3_create_issued_invoice. It does not explicitly list exclusion criteria or alternatives, but the 'received (incoming)' qualifier provides clear selection context.

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