brc_update_sales_invoice

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It reveals the preflight confirmation pattern and defaulting behavior for notes. It does not mention side effects like idempotency or rate limits, but the confirmation mechanism mitigates accidental writes. Overall, good transparency for a mutation tool.

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 concise yet comprehensive: two sentences that cover purpose, preflight process, and parameter nuances. No redundant or filler content. Each sentence earns its place.

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 complexity of the two-phase commit and lack of output schema, the description provides essential context about the first response (confirmation_required and preview). However, it does not describe the final successful response format. Still, it is largely complete for the expected usage pattern.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value: explains that leaving note blank defaults to customer name, details reference field relationships, and gives explicit usage for confirmWrite. This goes beyond the schema to clarify behavior and intent.

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 clearly states 'Updates a BRC sales invoice' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions 'structured safe text/reference fields', which hints at the nature of the update but does not explicitly differentiate from similar update tools like brc_update_sales_credit_note or brc_update_sales_entry. The purpose is clear but could be more distinct.

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?

Excellent usage guidance: describes a two-step process with preflight and confirmation. Explicitly states to first call without confirmWrite: true, then retry with confirmWrite: true only after explicit user confirmation. Warns that 'Passing preflight is not confirmation.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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