configure_invoice_numbering

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, permissions, or return values. It only states a purpose without revealing whether the action is safe, reversible, or what changes occur. This is a significant gap for a configuration tool.

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 a single short phrase, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks necessary detail about parameters and behavior, so it does not earn its place as a useful description.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, this description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain how to configure invoice numbering, what each parameter does, or what the tool returns, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively.

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 has three parameters (model, show_rib, pdf_model) with zero descriptions, and the description does not mention any of them. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to explain parameter meaning or usage.

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 'Guide pour configurer la numerotation des factures' clearly identifies the resource (invoice numbering) and the action (configuring), but the use of 'Guide' makes it sound like documentation rather than a direct action. It does not specify what configuring entails or distinguish it from sibling configure tools like configure_invoice_options.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, and many sibling tools share the 'configure_' prefix, making it impossible to choose correctly.

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