receipts_convert_to_invoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses side effects: creates a new invoice, marks the receipt as invoiced, and establishes a document link—all beyond what a casual reader might expect from a convert operation. It also states the return value (both new invoice and updated receipt). This is strong behavioral transparency for an un-annotated mutation tool.

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 compact two-sentence structure that front-loads the primary purpose and then adds behavioral detail (marks receipt as invoiced, establishes link, returns both documents). Every sentence carries substance with no filler or redundancy. Slightly less crisp than ideal since it could arguably be one tighter sentence, but overall efficient.

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 state-changing conversion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation's mechanics, side effects (receipt invalidation/marking), and return value. The 5 parameters are all documented in the schema at 100% coverage. It could mention prerequisites or side effects like whether the original receipt becomes non-editable, but for the available context it is reasonably complete.

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 baseline is 3 with no param info needed. The description references the main uuid parameter implicitly ('the receipt') but does not explain the optional parameters (dueDate, issueDate, invoiceSeriesId) beyond the schema. However, the schema already provides clear descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the description adds no meaningful extra semantics. 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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Convert an issued receipt into a final invoice') and clearly explains the transformation. It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the conversion action which differs from create/delete/issue operations on receipts and the related proforma_invoices_convert and delivery_notes_convert tools.

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 states the input is an 'issued' receipt, implying it must already be issued, which offers some usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like invoices_create or other convert tools, nor does it explain what happens if the receipt is not in an issued state or cannot be converted. No exclusions or failure conditions are mentioned.

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