update_invoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions 'sparse update' but fails to disclose error handling (e.g., if invoice doesn't exist), authorization requirements, or any side effects. Essential behavioral traits like idempotency or validation are missing, making the tool less predictable for an AI agent.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys all critical information without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it quick to parse.

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 a sparse update with nested objects and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what fields are updatable, how to structure the patch, or what the response contains. An agent would need external knowledge to use the tool correctly.

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?

The description adds some value by noting 'sparse update', which hints at the patch parameter's purpose, but it does not explain the structure of the patch object or how fields should be specified. With only 50% schema coverage (company has a description, params does not), the description partially compensates but leaves key details for the agent to guess.

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 verb 'Update', the resource 'existing invoice in Quickbooks', and the method 'by ID'. It also specifies 'sparse update', distinguishing it from create_invoice and delete_invoice. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies when to use it (to update an invoice by ID with a sparse update), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools. There is no comparison to other update tools like update_credit_memo, so an agent might need to infer context from the tool name.

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