create_addfunds_invoice

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive intent (destructiveHint=false). The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by highlighting 'ДЕНЬГИ: создаёт реальный инвойс' (MONEY: creates a real invoice), signaling actual financial liability and external effects, which aligns with openWorldHint=true.

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 filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the critical financial warning is placed prominently as a separate highlighted statement.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a critical behavior (real invoice). It does not describe return values or follow-up steps, but nothing essential for selecting and invoking the tool is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already have descriptions: amount in account currency and confirm required to execute. The description adds only the generic 'specified amount' phrasing, so it does not materially extend the schema's parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Создать инвойс на пополнение кредитного баланса' (create an invoice for credit balance top-up). The parenthetical 'whmcs/create_addfunds' and the 'real invoice' warning make the operation concrete. It does not explicitly compare with siblings, but the addfunds resource is unique among the listed tools.

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 when to use the tool (when a credit balance top-up invoice is needed) and warns that it is a real-money operation. It does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or contrast with related billing tools such as generate_due_invoice or apply_credit.

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