recurring_invoices_bulk_issue_now

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does disclose an important side-effect detail — 'Does not update the nextIssuanceDate' — which is genuinely useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't address other behavioral aspects such as what happens on partial failure (some templates valid, some invalid), whether generation is transactional, or what happens to templates that have already issued invoices recently.

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 sentences, all of which earn their place: the primary action, the use case, and the important side-effect warning about nextIssuanceDate. There's minimal waste. It could arguably be more concise, but the disclosure about nextIssuanceDate is valuable and worth the extra sentence.

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 an action-heavy mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral caveat. However, it leaves gaps: no mention of error handling for mixed success/failure across multiple ids, no description of what the return value contains, and no indication of rate/limit behavior beyond the schema's maxItems constraint. Given this is a write operation with real consequences, more context would improve completeness.

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%, covering both parameters (ids array and companyId). The description itself doesn't add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema is fully covered, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No additional guidance on id format or expected behavior of companyId override is given.

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 verb (generate), the resource (invoices from recurring templates), and the scope (multiple templates/bulk). The name and description together make it unambiguous. It also explicitly distinguishes this bulk variant from the single-template counterpart `recurring_invoices_issue_now`, which is a sibling.

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 purpose ('triggering generation outside the normal schedule'), which gives an implicit when-to-use. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the main alternative (recurring_invoices_issue_now for a single template) or when one should prefer the single version over the bulk version. It doesn't state exclusions or prerequisites either.

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