timeiq_invoice_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states 'update' (mutation) and 'partial changeset' (PATCH semantics), but does not disclose potential side effects, validation rules, or requirements (e.g., invoice existence, authorization). The dry_run parameter is unexplained. For a mutation tool, this is minimal 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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter hints without becoming verbose.

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 tool has 3 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and many sibling invoice tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, error scenarios, or how dry_run works. For a mutation operation with zero annotations, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds examples of changset fields (details, dates, comments) but does not explain the id parameter (assumed invoice ID) or the dry_run parameter purpose. While it adds some context beyond the bare schema, it is insufficient to fully understand all parameters.

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 ('an invoice'), and the method ('partial changeset'). It provides examples ('details, dates, comments') which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, or mark_paid. The purpose is specific and 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 description implies usage for updating existing invoice fields with a partial changeset, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as mark_paid or send. There is no guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites (e.g., invoice must exist). The mention of 'partial changeset' is a helpful hint but insufficient for clear decision-making.

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