invoices_update_invoice

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious mutation, such as what gets overwritten, authentication needs, or side effects. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotation-provided safety profile.

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 short sentence, which is extremely concise and front-loaded with the action. However, for a tool with 25 parameters and nested objects, it is under-specified—conciseness here crosses into incompleteness, so a 3 reflects the balance.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (25 parameters, many optional nested objects, no output schema), the description is grossly insufficient. It fails to mention any conditional requirements, special formats, or operational context. The schema covers param definitions, but the description offers no overview, examples, or clarifications that an agent would need for correct invocation.

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 (84%), so the schema itself documents most parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but with such high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not compensate for the 16% of undocumented parameters, but that is a minor gap.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair ('Update invoice') but provides no additional scope or differentiation from sibling invoice tools (e.g., invoices_update_invoice_template). It is not a tautology, but it adds nothing beyond the tool name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context such as 'use this to modify an existing invoice's fields'. The description is entirely silent on usage scenarios.

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