recurring_invoices_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: automatic invoice generation on a schedule. However, it doesn't mention auth/permission requirements, side effects of creation, or what the response contains since there's no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. All content is relevant. Could arguably drop the pricing-rules enumeration to the schema, but it's useful high-level context. 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?

This is a complex tool (24 params, 10 required) with no output schema and no annotations. The description is adequate but minimal for this complexity. It doesn't explain relationships among the many interconnected fields (e.g., frequencyDay for monthly vs frequencyMonth for yearly, dueDateDays vs dueDateFixedDay dependencies) which would help the agent satisfy the required-parameter constraints.

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 the schema fully documents all 24 parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by summarizing the pricing rule options (fixed, updated_product, bnr_rate, bnr_rate_markup) which mirrors but slightly condenses schema text. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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?

Description states it creates a recurring invoice template with automatic invoice generation based on frequency/schedule. Clear verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling create tools like invoices_create (one-off) and proforma_invoices_create, though it doesn't explicitly address the recurring_* sibling family.

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 explains what it does but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs the one-off invoices_create or the update/toggle siblings. The automatic-generation behavior is implied as the use case but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are named.

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