Create invoice draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the action. It does not disclose side effects like automatic customer creation via createCustomerIfMissing, or that it creates a draft rather than a booked invoice, nor does it mention error conditions or permissions.

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 short, almost to the point of under-specification. While concise, it sacrifices needed detail and does not earn its place as a standalone, informative description.

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 complex tool with 11 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, this one-sentence description is drastically incomplete. It fails to cover prerequisites, return values, or behavior, making it insufficient for an agent to use confidently.

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 55%, yet the description adds no parameter information whatsoever. It does not explain required fields, optional fields like newCustomer, or behaviors such as how createCustomerIfMissing works, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema.

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 tool creates a draft invoice in e-conomic, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like update_invoice_draft and book_invoice_draft by emphasizing the creation step.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_invoice_draft or book_invoice_draft. It also lacks context on prerequisites, such as requiring an existing customer or how to handle missing customers.

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