Create Recurring Sale Invoices

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-idempotent, destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two behavioral facts not present in the schema: created invoices land in DRAFT state and invoice numbers are auto-assigned. It does not explain why the operation is flagged destructive or whether repeated calls duplicate data, leaving a small gap.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the core behavior is front-loaded and the preview caveat follows immediately. Every clause carries information.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with a fully documented schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing result-state context (DRAFT) and numbering behavior. Only the rationale for the destructive flag and duplicate-run behavior are left unaddressed.

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 all six parameters, including the dry_run default and invoice_ids format, are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the dry_run behavior without adding syntax or edge-case meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 verb (clone), the source resource (previous-month sale invoices), and the resulting artifact (DRAFT recurring invoices), so the operation and its output state are unambiguous. It does not name the near siblings create_sale_invoice or list_sale_invoices to distinguish itself, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Mentions that dry_run=true previews, which is a genuine usage hint for a mutation tool. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over create_sale_invoice or batch flows, and no exclusions or prerequisites; usage is implied rather than stated.

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