pennylane_update_supplier_invoice

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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuinely new information beyond them: the PATCH semantics that only supplied fields are modified, which is critical for a mutation tool and not stated by any annotation.

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: the mutation action first, then the most important behavioral constraint. Nothing extraneous.

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?

An output schema and rich annotations exist, so the description does not need to cover return values or the safety profile. However, for a mutation tool it omits meaningful context such as whether finalized invoices can be edited or what permission is required, leaving some gaps an agent might need.

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% and every parameter (id, date, deadline, supplier_id, invoice_number) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or inter-parameter constraints beyond that, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Modifie une facture fournisseur'), which clearly distinguishes it from get/list/create supplier invoice siblings. It does not, however, explicitly name the nearby alternative pennylane_update_supplier_invoice_payment_status, so differentiation relies on the agent reading sibling names.

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 explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusion guidance. The second sentence implies partial-update behaviour but does not tell the agent when this tool is appropriate versus related tools like the payment-status updater or the changelog tools.

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