Update Recurring Invoice

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining PATCH semantics and the side effect that changes to lineItems/taxRate only affect future invoices. No contradiction with annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false).

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 English portion is concise and front-loaded, with two sentences covering key points. The inclusion of a Spanish translation doubles length but is a business requirement. Overall efficient.

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 description covers the essential behavioral aspects (partial update, future-only effect) and is sufficient given the presence of an output schema and annotations. Could mention error conditions or prerequisites, but not critical.

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 specific behavioral notes for lineItems and taxRate parameters, clarifying their future-only impact, which provides additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 the action ('update'), the resource ('recurring invoice template'), and the specific semantics ('PATCH', partial update). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create, delete, pause, resume, and run.

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 clear context about partial update and future-only effect, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or exclude certain scenarios. The agent can infer usage from sibling tool names.

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