receipts_convert_to_invoice

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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description still adds real value: it discloses the mutation of the source record ('marks the receipt as invoiced'), the creation of a new record, and the establishment of a link between them. It stops short of covering repeat-call behavior (idempotentHint=false implies duplicates are possible) or any authorization requirements.

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: what it does, what changes on both sides, and what is returned. The primary action is front-loaded and no sentence is redundant.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, side effects, and return payload (new invoice plus updated receipt). It is slightly incomplete on failure modes — already-invoiced receipts, series/numbering conflicts, or required permissions — but nothing essential to invoking it is missing.

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 all five parameters including defaults and formats (YYYY-MM-DD, company override) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the aggregate notion that 'all receipt data' is copied; the optional overrides (dueDate, issueDate, invoiceSeriesId) are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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 precise resource pairing ('issued receipt' -> 'final invoice'), then spells out the three resulting effects. An agent can distinguish this immediately from receipts_create, receipts_issue, or proforma_invoices_convert without opening any 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?

The phrase 'an issued receipt' implies the precondition that the source must already be issued, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of what to do instead for proformas or delivery notes, and no statement of what happens if the receipt is already invoiced.

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