update_invoice

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

The description adds detail beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining the update/create/delete logic for invoice lines and charges, though it omits other potential side effects or authorization requirements.

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 (two sentences plus a reference) with no redundant information, using a warning emoji and a clear directive.

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?

While the description covers the key array behavior and leverages the output schema, it does not explain the effect of omitting optional parameters or provide full context for a destructive tool with many parameters.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only clarifies the invoice_lines and charges parameters; the remaining 11 parameters are left undescribed, relying on their names for meaning.

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 explicitly states 'Updates invoice' and details the behavior for lines/charges (update with id, create without, delete if omitted), clearly distinguishing from siblings like update_invoice_charges and create_invoice.

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 advises to confirm with the user ('Confirmar con usuario') for a destructive action and directs to create_invoice for structure, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like update_invoice_charges.

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