Create Sale Invoice

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

Annotations declare this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent write operation, so the safety profile is partly conveyed structurally. However the description adds nothing on top: it does not say what gets created, whether the invoice starts as a draft, whether confirmation is required, or what side effects on journals/ledgers occur. For a mutating financial document tool, this is a substantial 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?

The sentence is grammatically clean with zero waste, but this is under-specification masquerading as brevity rather than genuine conciseness. A single content-free line does not earn its place as the tool's only guidance.

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 12-parameter, 6-required mutation tool with nested item objects, no output schema, and a rich confirm/send/validate sibling ecosystem, the description is inadequate. The schema covers field syntax, but nothing explains the creation workflow, resulting state, or next steps, leaving the agent to reconstruct the process from sibling names alone.

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%, including a detailed note on item structure, dimension requirements, and discount derivation, so the schema fully documents all 12 parameters. The description contributes no parameter meaning whatsoever, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate rather than higher.

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 'Create a sales invoice' merely restates the tool name and title in sentence form, with no distinguishing detail about scope, downstream effects, or the invoice lifecycle. It technically names a verb and resource, but an agent gains nothing beyond what the name already tells it, especially against siblings like update_sale_invoice or create_recurring_sale_invoices.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus create_purchase_invoice, update_sale_invoice, create_recurring_sale_invoices, or the confirm/send siblings. No prerequisites, no mention that a created invoice may need subsequent confirmation or sending. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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