ghl_invoice_send

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

Annotations provide minimal behavioral hints (not read-only, not destructive). The description adds endpoint and scopes but does not explain side effects like invoice status changes, communication channels, or the significance of the 'action' parameter.

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?

Description is concise at four lines, front-loaded with the action. However, it could be better structured as a coherent sentence instead of fragmented details.

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 complex input schema with nested objects and enum, the description lacks explanation of how parameters interact (e.g., action modes, auto-payment). No mention of prerequisites or how sending affects invoice state.

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 already documents parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in baseline score.

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 tool sends an invoice by invoice ID. The verb 'send' and resource 'invoice' are unambiguous, and the tool is distinct from siblings like create, delete, or schedule.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other invoice-related tools (e.g., create, schedule). The name implies sending, but context on prerequisites or alternatives is missing.

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