create_invoice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'creates' but does not mention side effects, validation, API key requirements, or whether the creation is permanent. This is a significant gap for a creation 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 a single, concise sentence with zero fluff. It is front-loaded with the key information (creates document types). No unnecessary words are used, making it highly efficient, though perhaps sparse for such a complex tool.

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 tool with 25 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is grossly inadequate. It lacks critical context such as how to structure the item arrays, what the API expects, error scenarios, or any post-creation behavior. The description is not complete enough for reliable agent use.

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 all 25 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the complete schema coverage.

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 verb 'Erstellt' (creates) and the resource types (Rechnung, Gutschrift, Angebot), which covers the core purpose. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'create_invoice_draft', and the scope is somewhat ambiguous given the multiple document types.

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 'create_invoice_draft'. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to choose invoice vs credit vs offer, or any contextual hints. The description is purely declarative.

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