patch-crm-v3-objects-invoices-var_var

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Merely saying 'Update' does not communicate whether this is a partial update, how the idProperty parameter behaves, whether the update is idempotent, or what the response looks like. It gives almost no behavioral information beyond what the tool name already implies.

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?

One word is concise, but it is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. There is no structure, no key information front-loaded, and no explanation of the operation or its requirements.

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?

This is a PATCH operation with 3 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is a single word, leaving the agent without any context on request formatting, property handling, or expected behavior. It is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description 'Update' adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema does describe each parameter (e.g., 'Path parameter invoiceId'). The schema descriptions are terse but sufficient to identify parameter roles, so the tool description's lack of param info does not lower the score.

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 'Update' is a generic verb that does not specify the resource or the action scope. It relies entirely on the tool name 'patch-crm-v3-objects-invoices-var_var' to convey meaning, and it does not distinguish this tool from sibling patch tools like patch-crm-v3-objects-quotes-var_var or patch-crm-v3-objects-line_items-var_var.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or scenarios where another tool (e.g., batch-update or upsert) would be preferred.

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