dolibarr_add_invoice_line

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that adding a line item modifies the invoice, that the invoice must be in draft status, or any other side effects (e.g., recalculating totals). No authentication or error states are indicated.

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 fluff, achieving conciseness. However, it is too brief, lacking necessary details to be effective. The sentence structure is clear but under-specified.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter formats, or preconditions, leaving the agent to guess critical usage details.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no meaning to any parameter. The agent must infer from parameter names alone (e.g., 'subprice', 'tva_tx'), which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 action ('Add a line item') and the target ('existing draft invoice'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like dolibarr_add_contract_line and dolibarr_add_proposal_line by specifying 'invoice'. However, it could be more precise by noting that only draft invoices are valid targets.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., invoice must be in draft status). It implies usage for adding line items but lacks explicit context for selection.

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