invoices_update_invoice_late_fees_configuration

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, implying a mutation that is not destructive. The description simply says 'update' which aligns but adds no further behavioral context. It does not disclose whether the entire configuration is replaced or only partially updated, what happens to existing settings, whether it is idempotent (idempotentHint=false is not elaborated), or any side effects. Since annotations are minimal, the description carries the burden but fails to provide it.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness. Every word is necessary but the value added is minimal. A slightly more informative phrasing without excessive length would improve this dimension.

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 tool has a complex nested parameter structure (lateFeesConfiguration with nested objects for grace, frequency, maxLateFees) and no output schema. The description does not explain how these configurations are applied, what the required fields mean in context, or what the response would indicate (e.g., success or failure). Given the complexity, the description is insufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly without opening the schema and making assumptions.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters having descriptions. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already states. For nested objects like 'grace' and 'maxLateFees' which are only described as 'Late Fees Grace' and 'Max late fees payable' with no structure, the description could have clarified their format, but it doesn't. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does most of the work, but the description misses an opportunity to clarify complex nested parameters.

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 invoice late fees configuration' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (invoice late fees configuration). It is distinguishably about invoices rather than invoice templates, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'invoices_update_invoice_template_late_fees_configuration' which could cause confusion if the agent doesn't notice the 'invoice' vs 'invoice_template' distinction in the 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like invoice template late fees configuration, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., invoice must exist, configuration must be active). An agent has to infer usage solely from the parameter names, which is insufficient.

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