invoices_update_estimate_template

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which already communicate that this is a non-destructive, idempotent write operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as what gets overwritten, required permissions, or side effects. Since the description carries none of the transparency burden, it barely adds value beyond the annotations, resulting in a low score.

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 with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource. While it could be longer to provide more context, it is efficient and easy to parse, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

Despite a large schema (17 parameters, 6 required) and nested objects, the description gives no overall context about the operation, e.g., that it modifies an existing template, that templateId is essential, or how the fields interrelate. The lack of an output schema and the complexity of the tool mean the description is far from complete for an agent to use it confidently.

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 high (88%), so most parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-related meaning, but the schema handles it. With such high coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to repeat parameter details and does not add any cross-parameter insights either.

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 Template' clearly states a specific verb (update) and resource (estimate template), distinguishing it from related tools like invoices_create_estimate_template and invoices_delete_estimate_template. However, it lacks any detail about what fields can be updated or the context of the operation, so it is clear but minimally informative.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing template), the difference from creating or listing templates, or any conditions under which this tool is preferred. An agent receives zero context to decide between this and the many sibling invoice/estimate tool.

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