update_invoice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not communicate whether updates are partial or full replacements, what side effects occur, whether status transitions or validations apply, or any permission/authtorization implications. The single word 'Update' merely indicates mutation with no added transparency.

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 short sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It front-loads the core operation but fails to include the substance an agent needs, similar to a truncated placeholder rather than a deliberately concise definition.

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?

For a mutating tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a free-form body, the description is drastically incomplete. The agent receives no information about expected body fields, how to obtain the invoice id, what responses look like, or any behavioral constraints. The description adds virtually no context beyond what the tool name already conveys.

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 no parameter-level meanings. The schema already documents 'body' as a pass-through to Bigcapital and leaves 'id' without a description, so the description doesn't compensate for the 50% schema coverage gap. An agent is left unsure how to construct the body or what 'id' identifies.

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 clear verb ('Update') and a resource ('a sale invoice'), which clarifies this is a sales-side invoice operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_bill and update_expense. However, it provides no detail about what fields or aspects can be updated, so it stops short of a fully informative purpose statement.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_invoice, get_invoice, or update_bill. The only implied usage is that updating a sale invoice would go here, with no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions favoring a sibling tool.

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