Invoices: create invoice

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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false). The description reinforces these by noting it creates data and is not idempotent, adding the explicit warning about duplicates. This adds some context but does not disclose additional behaviors beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Relatively concise with two clear parts: a generic note and a specific statement. Uses emoji and bold for emphasis, but some redundancy exists (e.g., duplicates 'creates' and 'create'). Could be slightly trimmed without losing clarity.

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 32 parameters, no output schema, and numerous sibling tools for invoice creation, the description lacks contextual completeness. It does not explain how this differs from draft or e-invoice tools, nor does it outline typical usage scenarios. The high schema coverage partially compensates, but the tool's role in the broader system is unclear.

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 does not elaborate on any parameter meaning beyond the schema; it only says 'Add an invoice for the specified customer', which does not add semantic value.

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?

Clearly states it creates an invoice for a specified customer. The bold 'create invoice' and 'Add an invoice' specifically identify the resource and action. However, the generic preamble 'Creates new records (receipts, transactions, postings, invoices, master data)' broadens the scope, potentially causing confusion with sibling tools that create other record 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like invoices_create_draft or invoices_create_e_invoice. The description mentions idempotency but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The endpoint is provided but not contextualized.

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