Update Contract'S Invoice Configuration

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it performs a PATCH update (partial) and returns the modified object, but does not detail permissions, error states, or side effects beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences: first states purpose, second clarifies partial update and return, third lists required parameters and API reference. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description mentions the return ('modified object') and the required params. It is adequate for a simple update tool but could briefly mention error handling or common use cases.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds that project_id and contract_id are required and that the update is partial (only supplied fields changed), which slightly enhances schema info.

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 ('a specific Contract's Invoice Configuration'), and the behavior ('only the supplied fields are changed'). It distinguishes from other sibling update tools by targeting invoice configuration specifically.

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 mentions required parameters and that only supplied fields are changed, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternative tools like get_contracts_invoice_configuration.

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