proforma_invoices_convert

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: it creates a new invoice, marks the proforma as converted, links the two documents, and returns both records. It does not warn about duplicate conversion risk, permissions, or error conditions, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the side effects and return value. No redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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?

For a mutation tool with complete parameter descriptions and annotations, the description covers the core action, side effects, and return values. It could be more complete by stating prerequisites, duplicate-call behavior, and error/status constraints, but what is present is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 100%, so the schema already documents uuid and each override parameter (dueDate, companyId, issueDate, invoiceSeriesId). The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond saying the new invoice contains all proforma data, so 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?

States a specific verb (convert) and resource (proforma invoice), plus the concrete outcome: a new final invoice is created, the proforma is marked converted, and both documents are linked. An agent can distinguish this from proforma list/get/create/update/delete siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the conversion action, but the description does not say when this should be used versus proforma_invoices_accept, proforma_invoices_reject, or invoices_create directly. It also omits prerequisites such as whether the proforma must be in a particular status before conversion.

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