Create Invoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions creating a draft but does not disclose other behaviors such as idempotency, error handling, or side effects like sending emails. The auto_advance parameter is not addressed.

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, zero fluff. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a critical workflow hint. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters (1 required, 6 optional with enums and defaults), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain success/failure states, return value, or how parameters interact. More detail is needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters. It does not explain usage of collection_method or days_until_due, but the schema descriptions are adequate.

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 'Create' and resource 'draft invoice', and distinguishes this tool from siblings like finalize_invoice and create_invoice_item by specifying the draft state and the need to add items before finalizing.

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 a workflow: create draft, then add items, then finalize. This provides context for when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other creation tools like create_payment_intent.

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