update_invoice

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

The description discloses no behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It does not explain whether the update is a partial patch or full replacement, whether validation occurs, any side effects on invoice status, or required permissions. For a mutation tool with a large schema, this is a significant gap.

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, consisting of a single sentence 'Edit an invoice'. It is front-loaded and not verbose, but it lacks structure and depth. It is under-specified to the point of being minimally helpful, similar to a placeholder rather than a properly scoped description.

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 complex tool with 23 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling invoice operations, this description is incomplete. It fails to explain the scope of editable fields, behavioral semantics, or how it fits into the invoice lifecycle. The agent must rely entirely on the schema and annotations, which do not provide sufficient contextual guidance.

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 description adds no information about the 23 parameters. Schema coverage is 65%, leaving several fields undocumented (e.g., title, header, footer, is_valid_from, show_position_taxes). The description does not compensate for these gaps or clarify which fields can be edited, so it provides no value beyond the input schema.

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 'Edit an invoice' clearly specifies a verb (edit) and resource (invoice), indicating an update operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_invoice, delete_invoice, or issue_invoice, but the verb and the tool name make the action reasonably clear.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it modifies an existing invoice, nor does it contrast with related operations like create_invoice, issue_invoice, or cancel_invoice. There is no context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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