Create Invoice

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a state-changing operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as whether the invoice is created as a draft, requires the contact to exist, or has external side effects (openWorldHint). It does not contradict annotations.

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 that is front-loaded and free of redundancy. It conveys the core purpose with minimal words.

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?

With 6 parameters, a nested items array, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not mention what the tool returns, preconditions (e.g., contact existence), or any special behavior around invoice creation. The complexity is higher than the description addresses.

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?

The schema already covers 67% of parameters with descriptions (name, items, dueDate, contactId). The description only adds 'for a contact', which adds little beyond the schema. It does not clarify the undocumented locationId or currency parameters.

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 'Create a new invoice for a contact' uses a specific verb (create) and resource (invoice) with the target (contact). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ghl_get_invoice, ghl_list_invoices, ghl_send_invoice, and ghl_void_invoice.

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 clearly implies use when creating a new invoice for a contact, which is distinct from sending, listing, or voiding invoices. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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