Send a sales invoice

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

The description adds the behavioral detail that the invoice will be finalized before sending, which is not captured by the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It also implies the 'mark' method is simply marking as sent rather than actually dispatching. However, it does not disclose potential authorization requirements, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens to the invoice after sending.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary action and methods. It includes the API endpoint in brackets, which is useful but slightly redundant. Every sentence contributes meaningful information; no filler or tautology.

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 absence of an output schema and the moderate complexity of the request (3 parameters, nested body), the description provides a functional overview but lacks details such as response behavior, potential errors, or prerequisites (e.g., invoice must exist and be in a sendable state). It is adequate for basic invocation but leaves some operational context unclear.

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 67%, with the body's method and email_address already described in the schema. The description's mention of the three send methods aligns with the method enum, adding a small amount of context beyond the schema. But it does not clarify the 'id' or 'administration' parameters, and the schema already covers the essential semantics.

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 explicitly states the action (send a sales invoice), the three methods (email, mark as sent, Peppol), and a key side effect (finalized before sending). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_sales_order or send_quotation, leaving no ambiguity about the operation.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions for choosing email over mark or Peppol, nor does it reference sibling tools such as update_sales_invoice or get_sales_invoice_pdf. The usage context is only implicit from the tool name and the three methods listed.

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