ai_invoice_pipeline_run

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists steps and return type, but fails to mention side effects like writing to database, invoking posting skill (which may be destructive), or idempotency. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 very concise: two sentences, first states purpose, second lists steps and return. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter details, behavioral transparency, and usage guidance, making it insufficient for correct invocation.

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 low (14%), and the description does not add meaning to parameters beyond the schema. It mentions 'one move+attachment' but does not explain how move_id and attachment_id relate or the meaning of other parameters like source, tenant_tier, etc.

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 executes the full registered step pipeline for one move+attachment, listing the specific steps and return type. This is very specific and distinguishes from siblings like ai_invoice_extract which only does extraction.

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 the tool is for running the entire pipeline, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., ai_invoice_pipeline_steps for listing steps, ai_pipeline_step_execute for individual steps) or provide exclusions.

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