update_document_items_bulkUpdate many line items on a document in one call — prefer this over repeated single-item updates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | Line items to update; each entry must include the line `id` plus the fields to change. | |
| quinvoice | Yes | Id of the parent document (invoice, quote, bill, etc.) whose line items are being updated (required). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / items / descriptionAdded value: +"Line items to update; each entry must include the line `id` plus the fields to change."Input schema / properties / quinvoice / descriptionAdded value: +"Id of the parent document (invoice, quote, bill, etc.) whose line items are being updated (required)."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 this is a bulk mutation and one call, but does not disclose atomicity, partial failure behavior, or permission requirements. This is a moderate gap, not a contradiction.
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 one efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, then adds a usage preference. Every word earns its place.
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 bulk-update tool with a nested items array, the schema carries enough parameter detail, and the description clarifies the intended use case. It is slightly incomplete because it omits what happens on partial failure or whether the update is atomic, but that is not essential for basic invocation.
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%, and both items and quinvoice already have meaningful schema descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('many line items on a document'), and a scope ('in one call'). This clearly distinguishes the bulk tool from related siblings like update_document_item, which targets a single item.
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 clear usage context: prefer this tool over repeated single-item updates. This is a direct routing signal, though it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name the exact sibling alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.