Send invoice

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent. The description adds valuable context that sending is outward-facing and results in emails/texts to the customer. However, it does not disclose that repeated sends will deliver duplicate messages or that liveMode=false triggers a test send without charging, though the latter is partially covered in the 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?

The description is two concise sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core action and resource, then provides a brief note about the outward-facing nature. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and clear.

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 relatively simple send operation with 5 parameters and 80% schema coverage, the description is adequate. It confirms the invoice must already exist and explains the external effect. It does not mention what the response will indicate or the default behavior of liveMode, but the schema covers these details, so nothing critical 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 80%, and the parameters include their own descriptions for action, userId, liveMode, and locationId. The description does not add any parameter-specific details, relying on the schema to explain them. This meets the baseline for high coverage without needing additional explanation.

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 specific action: 'Send/deliver an existing invoice to the contact via the configured channel(s).' It identifies the resource (existing invoice) and the action (send), and distinguishes it from related invoice operations like creating, listing, or voiding. The additional phrase 'This is outward-facing: it emails/texts the customer' reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when an invoice has already been created and needs to be delivered to the customer. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use ghl_send_estimate for estimates, or create_invoice first), but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately for sending an existing invoice.

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