feegow_create_invoice

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the write operation, environment requirement, value format (cents), and date format. It adds context beyond schema, though it could detail side effects or response 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 sentence with key information (purpose, format, requirement) front-loaded. Efficiently uses brackets for additional context, though could be structured more clearly.

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 complex nested schema, the description provides an overview (items, installments, type) and format details, but lacks explanation of return values or validation behavior. Adequate but not fully comprehensive for a mutation tool with rich schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description restates format details (cents, date) already in schema, adding no extra meaning. Does not compensate for the lack of enum values or nested structures beyond what schema provides.

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 financial invoices/accounts with type, items, and installments, specifying type meanings (C=receber, D=pagar). It distinguishes from sibling tools like feegow_list_invoices (read) and feegow_create_account (likely different) by focusing on 'invoice' creation.

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 usage via 'Cria uma conta/invoice financeira' and notes the write requirement (FEEGOW_ALLOW_WRITES=true), but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives among similar siblings (e.g., feegow_create_account).

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