pennylane_update_customer_invoice

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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true and readOnly=false. The description adds real value beyond them: the draft-only restriction and the partial-update semantics ('Seuls les champs fournis sont mis à jour'), which is behaviorally important for a PATCH-style mutation. It stops short of auth/permission or failure-mode detail.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The scope constraint and the partial-update rule each earn their 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the two pieces an agent most needs (draft-only scope and partial update), though it omits how to handle non-draft invoices.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters (id, date, deadline, customer_id, invoice_lines, special_mention) are already documented in the schema, including the note that invoice_lines replaces existing lines. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Modifie) and resource (facture client), and the '(brouillon uniquement)' qualifier separates it from sibling write tools like create_customer_invoice and finalize_customer_invoice. It never names an alternative explicitly, but the verb+scope makes the target operation unambiguous.

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 parenthetical 'brouillon uniquement' implies the valid precondition (only draft invoices can be edited), which is useful usage context. However, it does not say what to do for finalized invoices or point to the relevant sibling (e.g., finalize/mark-paid), so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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