create_invoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses helpful traits: creation results in a draft, due date is auto-computed from config rules, and multiple line items are supported. However, it does not mention return values, auth requirements, or side effects, which are gaps for a create tool.

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 three concise sentences in Japanese, front-loaded with the main action and state ('Creates a draft invoice'). Every sentence provides distinct useful information without redundancy.

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 description is adequate for a simple create tool with a detailed schema, but it lacks an explanation of the return value or post-creation behavior (e.g., what the draft invoice contains, how to access it later). Since there is no output schema, this gap makes the description incomplete for an agent needing to know the tool's result.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that due_date is automatically calculated (not user-specified in many cases) and that items support multiple lines. This goes beyond the schema's field-by-field descriptions.

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 (作成する) an invoice (請求書) in draft state (下書き), and specifies the key identifier (customer name). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_invoices (viewing) and create_deal (different resource).

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 implies use for creating draft invoices and notes that due date is auto-calculated, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No exclusions are mentioned, so usage context is only implied.

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