Book invoice draft

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention side effects such as whether the draft is deleted, whether the operation is reversible, required permissions, or error conditions. The optional 'bookWithNumber' parameter's effect is also unexplained, leaving the agent to guess about behavior.

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 a single, focused sentence that directly conveys the tool's core purpose. It contains no filler or irrelevant details, making it efficient and easy 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?

The tool lacks an output schema and annotations, and the description is minimal, failing to explain the operation's full impact. For example, it does not describe what happens to the draft invoice after booking, nor the return value. Given the low complexity, the description is still under-specified for an agent to use it safely without additional context.

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?

The schema descriptions for both parameters are present and cover 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain how 'bookWithNumber' interacts with the booking process or why it is optional.

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 ('book') and the resource ('draft invoice'), with the outcome being 'booked invoice'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_invoice_draft and update_invoice_draft, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'book' is domain-specific but clear in the invoice context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., update_invoice_draft) would be more appropriate. This is a significant gap given the presence of related draft and booked invoice tools.

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