ghl_invoice_schedule_activate

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that it activates and starts sending, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., immediate sending vs scheduled start) or behavior if already active. Adequate but not rich.

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 contains redundancy and grammatical errors ('Schedule an schedule invoice'), and includes endpoint/OAuth scopes which, while useful, add extra length. Not optimally concise.

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 nested objects and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and endpoint but lacks details on response or autoPayment configuration. There is room for more complete context.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-defined. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, e.g., explaining altId/altType/liveMode or autoPayment. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool activates a previously created but not-yet-scheduled recurring invoice, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ghl_invoice_schedule_create and ghl_invoice_schedule_update_and_activate by focusing on activation.

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 usage for activating a schedule that is not yet sending, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghl_invoice_schedule_update_and_activate. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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