elba_repeat_bill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a fair job: it warns that omitting items copies them verbatim, that copied item names may still say last month, that bill_date defaults to today, and that duplicate detection behaves as in elba_create_bill. It does not cover the effect of allow_duplicate or whether number is auto-assigned.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the copy scope comes first, then parameter behavior notes. Each sentence adds something, though the phrasing is dense and slightly telegraphic.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral risks (silent copying, stale item names, duplicate handling). It still leaves the return value and roughly half the parameters undocumented, so an agent cannot fully predict the result.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains items (format elba_create_bill, override vs copy) and bill_date (default today), but number, comment, allow_duplicate, and the semantics of bill_id as the source bill are left entirely to the bare schema.

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 opening line states a specific action: create a new invoice using a previous one as a template, listing exactly which fields are carried over (client, items, VAT, bank account, template, project). The copy semantics implicitly distinguish it from the sibling elba_create_bill, though it never names that distinction explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied — reach for this when repeating a prior invoice rather than building a new one — but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer elba_create_bill instead. The note about passing items to override and the default bill_date give partial operational guidance.

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