invoices_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation is irreversible ('cannot be edited'), that PDF generation is plan-dependent ('Pro plan'), and enumerates the full pipeline of side effects (validation, series assignment, XML generation, status change). This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond what any schema conveys.

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, information-dense sentence followed by a single clarification sentence. It is efficient with no wasted words, covering purpose, behavior, side effects, and the alternative tool in compact form. It earns a high score, though it could be slightly more scannable with bullet points for the pipeline steps.

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?

This is a state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description fully enumerates the transformation pipeline (validate, assign series, generate XML, generate PDF, change status), the irreversibility, the plan-dependency for PDF, and the follow-up action (invoices_submit). Given the tool's complexity and the absence of structured metadata, the description is thorough and complete for agent 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (uuid, companyId) are documented in the schema. The description adds context about the two parameters implicitly: uuid is the target invoice and companyId is an 'active company' override. However, it doesn't add details about companyId's meaning beyond 'uses active company if not set' which is in the schema itself, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: 'Issue a draft invoice.' It enumerates specific actions performed (validate data, assign series number, generate UBL 2.1 XML, generate PDF, change status). This distinguishes it from siblings like invoices_submit (sends to ANAF) and invoices_create (creates draft), providing clear scoping.

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 explicitly states the state transition ('changes status from draft to issued') and warns 'Once issued, the invoice cannot be edited.' It also directs the user to use invoices_submit for ANAF e-Factura submission, which is a clear alternative pointer. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool, but the irreversible consequence plus the sibling pointer provides strong contextual guidance.

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