invoices_update_estimate

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It doesn't explain side effects, required permissions, or error scenarios, so it fails to add value beyond the annotations.

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?

Two words is under-specification, not conciseness. The description gives no structured information and fails to front-load any useful detail. It is effectively as minimal as possible without being empty.

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 tool with 27 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description offers no context about return values, required inputs, or the update workflow. It is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 93% (high), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither improves nor harms parameter understanding.

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 'Update Estimate' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It says nothing about what an update entails, which fields are affected, or how it differs from the many sibling invoice/estimate tools.

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?

There is zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like invoices_create_new_estimate or invoices_update_invoice. No context, no exclusions, no prerequisites.

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