ghl_invoice_text2pay

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool can 'create or update', which aligns with annotations but adds little new context. No contradiction, but the description fails to disclose behavioral traits like side effects or authorization details beyond scopes.

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 very concise (two lines) and to the point, including endpoint info and OAuth scopes. Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be expanded slightly with usage guidance without becoming verbose.

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's complexity (many nested parameters, no output schema), the description is too brief. It omits return values, error handling, and important context about when to use this specific text2pay variant over other invoice tools.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents all parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline of 3.

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 'API to create or update a text2pay invoice', specifying the action (create/update) and resource (text2pay invoice). It also provides the endpoint. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling invoice creation tools like ghl_invoice_create, which reduces clarity for selection.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ghl_invoice_create, ghl_invoice_schedule_create). The description only mentions OAuth scopes but does not explain context or prerequisites.

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