invoices_update_invoice_template

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

The description adds zero behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, or any nuance of the update operation. The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description contributes nothing to clarify behavior.

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 under-specified, not concise. It is a bare two-word phrase with no structure, no front-loading of key constraints, and no elaboration. It fails to earn its space by providing any useful information.

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 has 12 parameters, 5 required, nested objects, and no output schema, this description is grossly inadequate. An agent would not know what this tool does beyond the name, cannot correctly fill required fields, and has no guidance on return values or side effects.

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?

With schema coverage at only 50%, the description carries part of the burden for explaining parameters, but it says nothing about any parameter. It does not clarify what 'items', 'businessDetails', 'currency', or other fields represent, leaving the agent without guidance on how to populate these complex nested objects.

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 template' is a tautology that simply restates the tool name (invoices_update_invoice_template). It fails to specify what kind of template, what fields can be updated, or how it differs from related tools like invoices_update_invoice_template_late_fees_configuration.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention relative tools, expected contexts, or any exclusions. It gives no indication of when an agent should pick this over other invoice template tools.

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