Create Invoice

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds key behavioral traits: creation with finalize=true is the only way to obtain a finalized invoice, and drafts cannot be finalized later. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences: the first delivers the primary purpose and key parameter behavior, the second provides an essential caveat. No extraneous information, perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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?

Given the complexity (nested body, no output schema), the description covers the critical behavioral nuance and parameter semantics. It does not specify the return value, but many creation tools implicitly return the created object. The description is nearly complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool.

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% with detailed descriptions for both parameters. The description adds further context for the finalize parameter, especially the limitation about drafts. For the body parameter, the schema already lists key fields, so the description does not add much, but overall the combination is sufficient.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new invoice in Lexware', specifying both the action (create) and the resource (invoice). Among many sibling tools like lexware_create_credit_note and lexware_create_quotation, this clearly distinguishes the tool for invoices. The finalize parameter detail further clarifies the specific output.

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 clear guidance on when to set finalize=true (for immediate finalization) versus omit/false (draft). It also warns that finalizing an existing draft is not supported, which is critical context. However, it does not explicitly compare with other create tools for different document types, though the purpose implies use only for invoices.

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