create_invoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It indicates the tool is a write operation with '[WRITE]' and mentions default status, but lacks details on idempotency, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects (e.g., whether it modifies other resources).

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 no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with '[WRITE]', making the action clear immediately.

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 tool has 11 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, error handling, or advanced usage patterns, leaving many aspects undocumented.

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 73% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying default values for 'type' (ACCREC) and 'status' (DRAFT), which are not fully captured in the schema. However, it does not explain complex parameters like 'raw' or 'tracking' further.

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 'Create', the resource 'invoice', and adds specifics: defaults to sales (ACCREC) and DRAFT status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_invoice' and 'list_invoices'.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use ACCPAY vs ACCREC, or when to use update_invoice instead). The schema includes an enum for type, but the description does not help with decision-making.

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