invoices_update_invoice_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate that it's a write operation. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not mention what happens to existing data, whether updates are partial or full replacements, or any side effects. With openWorldHint=true, the description should clarify external interactions but remains silent. It does not contradict annotations, but provides minimal added value.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It contains a single phrase that adds no distinct information. The description does not front-load any useful context or structure to help an agent parse the tool's purpose.

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?

This is a complex tool with 15 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and multiple related siblings. The description is entirely inadequate for an agent to understand how to correctly call the tool. It provides no context about required fields, how schedule updates work, or what the expected result is. The description fails to cover even the most basic context an agent needs.

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 only 33%, meaning many parameters lack descriptions in the schema. The description 'Update schedule' provides no additional meaning for any parameter. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage by explaining the purpose or relationships of fields like 'items', 'schedule', or 'discount'. An agent would have to guess the semantics of most required 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 schedule' is a near-tautology of the tool name 'invoices_update_invoice_schedule'. It restates the verb and resource without adding any specificity about what an invoice schedule is, what updating entails, or what fields are affected. An agent cannot distinguish this from the many other schedule-related invoice tools (e.g., 'invoices_create_invoice_schedule', 'invoices_schedule_invoice_schedule') based on this description alone.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to update versus create or schedule, or any exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the schema, which is unhelpful given the number of related sibling tools.

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