Create Recurring Sale Invoices

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

The description discloses key behaviors: cloning creates draft invoices, auto-assigns invoice numbers, and dry_run previews without creation. This adds value beyond the annotations (which mark destructiveHint=true) by clarifying the preview mode and auto-assignment.

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?

The description is extremely concise—two sentences, 15 words—with no unnecessary information. Every sentence conveys essential information, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does not explain return values or error handling. It covers the core operation but omits details about what the response contains (e.g., list of IDs) and potential failure scenarios, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema, only reinforcing the dry_run behavior and mentioning auto-assigned invoice numbers (not a parameter). Thus baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the action ('clone'), the resource ('previous-month sale invoices'), and the result ('DRAFT recurring invoices'). It distinguishes this from other invoice tools by explicitly mentioning recurring invoicing and the cloning mechanism.

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 mentions using dry_run=true for previewing, which gives some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_sale_invoice, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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