Update Recurring Invoice

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, but description adds key behavioral context: PATCH semantics, only provided fields change, and that modifying lineItems or taxRate affects only future generated invoices. No contradiction with 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 very concise, using two short sentences (plus Spanish translation) that front-load the essential information. No wasted words.

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 6 parameters, PATCH semantics, and future-only effects, the description covers the key nuance. The output schema is present but not relied upon. Missing prerequisites (e.g., existence of template) but overall sufficient.

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 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by explaining that changes to lineItems and taxRate only affect future invoices, which goes beyond the schema's documentation.

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 'Update an existing recurring invoice template using PATCH semantics.' It specifies the verb 'update' and the resource 'recurring invoice template,' distinguishing it from create, delete, pause, resume, and run operations.

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?

Explicitly says 'Only provided fields are changed' and explains the future-only effect of certain fields, guiding when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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