qbo_invoices_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important sparse-update semantics ('Only provided fields are changed') and the required Id/SyncToken, but says nothing about permissions, SyncToken-stale errors, whether a sent invoice can be edited, or other side effects of a mutation on a financial record.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core sparse-update semantics plus required-field constraint are front-loaded. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 9-parameter nested mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential contract (partial update, required identifiers) while the rich schema handles parameter detail. Minor gaps remain around preconditions (fetch-first workflow, editable-state constraints), but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 every parameter including nested Line, CustomerRef, and BillEmail shapes is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the confirmation that Id and SyncToken are required, which the schema's required array already states. 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource: 'Sparse-update an existing Invoice record.' The word 'existing' plus 'Sparse-update' cleanly separates it from qbo_invoices_create and qbo_invoices_void, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It implies usage by stating only provided fields are changed and that Id and SyncToken are required, which tells the agent this is a partial mutation. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., when to void vs. update, or that the record must be fetched first) — that prerequisite lives only in the schema's SyncToken description.

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