invoices_update_estimate_last_visited_at

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

Annotations already declare this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false), not idempotent, not destructive, and open-world. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, permissions, or response format. It doesn't contradict annotations, but it provides zero extra transparency.

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 concise sentence with no waste, front-loaded with the verb. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though it's minimal enough that it could be mistaken for a heading rather than a helpful explanation.

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?

The description lacks any explanation of what 'last visited at' means or why an agent would call this tool. No output schema exists, and the description provides no context about the operation's purpose or effects. An agent has no information about the significance of this update or its place in the invoice workflow.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter, estimateId, with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies; there is no extra info to boost the score.

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 last visited at' states a clear verb and resource, but it essentially paraphrases the tool name and adds no specifics. It does not differentiate from siblings like 'invoices_update_invoice_last_visited_at' beyond the word 'estimate' vs 'invoice', and provides no nuance about what updating 'last visited at' entails.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no context on workflow. The description only states the action without any indication of suitable scenarios or exclusions.

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