Update an invoice: mark it paid (records paid_at), overdue, cancelled, or edit client details / notes / due date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| paid_at | No | ISO timestamp (default now) when status = paid | |
| due_date | No | ||
| invoice_id | Yes | ||
| client_name | No | ||
| client_email | No | ||
| client_phone | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, so the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds useful context by noting that marking an invoice paid records paid_at, but it does not explain side effects of other status changes or what happens to existing values.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. The core action and the main update categories are front-loaded, and every clause contributes useful information.
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 an 8-parameter update tool with no output schema and minimal parameter documentation, this description is too thin. It does not state what the tool returns, whether updates merge or overwrite, which fields are required, or how status transitions behave beyond paid_at.
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 only 13%, so the description must compensate for 7 undocumented parameters. It names the updatable fields at a high level and clarifies that paid_at relates to the paid status, but it does not explain the status enum values, required invoice_id semantics, or formatting expectations for due_date and client fields.
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 names a specific verb ('update') and resource ('an invoice'), then enumerates the concrete outcomes: marking it paid, overdue, cancelled, or editing client details, notes, and due date. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like tascan_create_invoice and tascan_list_invoices.
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 through the listed update scenarios but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that tascan_create_invoice should be used for new invoices or that read-only tools should be used for inspection.
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.
Most tools map to a distinct resource+action pair, and the descriptions clearly separate entities like tasks, subtasks, workers, invoices, zones, assets, and reports. A few close pairs (get_report vs generate_report, dispatch_instruction vs dispatch_to_agent, analyze_issue vs auto_resolve) require careful reading, but the descriptions are detailed enough to disambiguate them.
The vast majority follow a tascan_verb_noun pattern with consistent create/get/list/update/delete verbs. Minor deviations like condition_history, server_info, zone_compliance, and one-word find slightly break the otherwise predictable pattern.
At 69 tools, this is far beyond what an agent can efficiently consider, and it bundles several distinct domains into one MCP surface. Even if each tool is individually useful, the combined set is an extreme mismatch for a coherent tool interface.
The surface covers nearly the full lifecycle for projects, events, tasks, subtasks, workers, reports, invoices, zones, assets, issues, and communications. Minor gaps exist (no explicit asset updates/decommissioning, no cancel_invite, no delete_zone), but the main workflows have no dead ends.
