dolibarr_create_invoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states only that the invoice is created as a draft, but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, or behavior around parameters like cond_reglement_code. Minimal but adequate.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds a helpful workflow note, every part earns its place.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally complete. It correctly identifies the tool's role and subsequent steps but lacks details about required fields, return values, or parameter format (e.g., date should be Unix timestamp). Adequate but could be richer.

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 50% (3 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter information at all, failing to compensate for the undocumented parameters (note_public, note_private, cond_reglement_code). It adds no value beyond the schema.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Create a new invoice header (draft)', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like dolibarr_add_invoice_line and dolibarr_validate_invoice by outlining the workflow.

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 a clear workflow: create header, then add lines with a sibling tool, then validate. It implies when to use this tool (initial creation) and when to use alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it.

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