ghl_invoice_template_create

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no additional behavioral traits such as side effects, state changes, or response behavior. It does not contradict annotations but offers no value beyond them.

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 extremely concise with only three lines: name, endpoint, and scopes. It is not verbose and front-loads key information. However, it could be more informative without adding much length, but it earns points for brevity.

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 complexity of the tool (nested parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks context about the purpose of an invoice template, required fields like altId/altType, and what the response looks like. The detailed schema partially compensates, but overall context 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters with detailed descriptions and examples. The single 'body' parameter is documented thoroughly within the schema. The description adds no further meaning, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Create template' alongside the tool name 'ghl_invoice_template_create' makes it clear the tool creates an invoice template. The verb 'Create' and resource 'template' are directly stated, and the sibling tools like 'ghl_invoice_template_update' further differentiate it. However, the description is minimal and does not elaborate beyond the name itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update, list). It only includes endpoint and OAuth scopes, but no context about prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where creation is appropriate. Agents lack help in deciding if this is the right tool.

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