proforma_invoices_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the status transition (draft to sent) and the read-only consequence, which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must be in draft status, what happens if already sent), required permissions, or error behavior if the invoice is not in draft state.

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 three sentences and reasonably efficient. The first sentence states the purpose, the second specifies the status transition, and the third discloses the read-only consequence. It's front-loaded with the action verb and resource. Minor redundancy between sentence 1 and sentence 2 could be trimmed but overall it's compact and purposeful.

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 simple state-transition tool with 2 well-documented params and no output schema, this description is mostly adequate. It explains the effect (read-only after send) and the status change. Missing elements include failure conditions (what if not in draft state?) and whether any notification/email is actually sent to the client. Given the simplicity and no nested objects, the gaps are modest but present.

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 are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add semantics beyond the schema for either parameter — uuid and companyId are already clearly described. The description's behavioral note about the transition adds context but not parameter-level detail, 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Mark a proforma invoice as sent to the client') and the specific resource (proforma invoice). It distinguishes from siblings like proforma_invoices_accept, reject, cancel, and convert by specifying the draft-to-sent status transition. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.

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 usage context (for marking sent, transitioning from draft to sent) but doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs alternatives like proforma_invoices_accept or proforma_invoices_convert. No exclusion criteria are provided, though the read-only consequence is a useful cue about the irrevocable nature. The when/alternatives guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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