Create Recurring Sale Invoices

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so description adds the dry_run preview behavior and auto-assignment of invoice numbers. However, it lacks details on failure modes (e.g., missing source invoices, invalid target date) and rate limits.

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 sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the main purpose, then adds key detail about dry_run and auto-assignment. Highly concise.

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?

Covers the main action and dry_run preview, but without an output schema, the agent lacks information about return values or success confirmation. Missing details on error handling and edge cases. Adequate but not fully complete given the tool's complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter context beyond the schema (only 'dry_run=true previews' and auto-assignment of invoice numbers). Does not elaborate on other parameters like source_month or target_date syntax.

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 verb 'clone', the resource 'previous-month sale invoices', and the outcome 'DRAFT recurring invoices'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_sale_invoice by focusing on recurring cloning and mentions auto-assignment of invoice numbers.

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 usage for recurring invoice generation and mentions dry_run for previewing, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., confirmed invoices in source month), or exclusions. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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