configure_invoice_options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what the tool actually changes. 'Guide pour configurer' is vague and does not even clearly state that it mutates invoice settings.

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 short but not concise; it is under-specified. A single vague sentence does not earn the right to be brief because it omits necessary information. There is no structure, front-loading, or useful elaboration.

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 configuration tool with 4 undocumented parameters and no output schema, this description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about the meaning of parameters, the effects of the operation, or how the tool relates to other invoice/configuration tools.

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 schema describes 4 parameters with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not mention any parameter names or meanings, so an agent cannot infer what values to pass (e.g., can_be_edited as a boolean-like number).

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 les options de facturation' restates the tool name without adding specific functionality. It does not list which invoice options are configured or distinguish itself from sibling configuration tools like configure_vat_mode. The word 'Guide' may also mislead an agent into thinking this is documentation rather than an actionable tool.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. With no usage context, an agent cannot decide when this tool is appropriate.

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