beel_update_invoice_customization

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds meaningful behavior: partial updates (only properties present are modified), effect only on future invoices (not already issued documents), and logo managed through a sub-resource. This gives the agent a clear picture of side effects and scope without contradicting 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?

The description is concise—three sentences that front-load the core action and scope, mention partial-update semantics, note the logo sub-resource, and state the endpoint. No redundant or filler content; every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 partial-update tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the resource, the fields, the partial behavior, the logo handling, and the future-only effect. An agent can invoke this correctly without additional info about prerequisites or responses.

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 input schema already describes company_id and the body properties with formats, examples, and patterns; however, schema description coverage is only 50% at the top level (body lacks a direct description). The description reiterates which fields can be updated but doesn't add parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond the schema. It does clarify that the update is partial, which is useful context.

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 verb ('updates') and the resource ('how the invoices of a company are rendered and delivered'), and enumerates specific aspects it modifies (PDF template, accent colour, invoice language, email language). It also clarifies partial-update behavior and that the logo is handled via a sub-resource, which distinguishes it from get/list tools such as beel_get_invoice_customization.

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 provides useful context on how updates behave (only provided properties modified, logo via sub-resource) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use this tool versus others. For example, it doesn't mention that reading current settings should use beel_get_invoice_customization, or that logo updates are done through a separate endpoint. The guidance is inferred rather than spelled out.

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