update_invoice_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states that the status is updated and gives examples; it does not mention validation rules for status transitions, side effects like notifications, reversibility, permissions, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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?

A single, direct sentence with a parenthetical example. It is appropriately sized, front-loaded, and contains 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?

The tool is relatively simple with two required parameters and a full enum, so an agent can select and invoke it correctly with the schema alone. However, the lack of behavioral details and absence of an output schema or annotations means the description does not fully cover all aspects, like validation constraints or return values. It is adequate but not rich.

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 fully documents both parameters: 'id' as a UUID string and 'status' with an enum of allowed values. The description repeats some enum values (e.g., paid, cancelled) but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Update' and a clear resource 'the status of an invoice', with examples of valid statuses (sent, paid, cancelled). It clearly differentiates from the broader 'update_invoice' tool by focusing exclusively on the status field, though it does not explicitly name this sibling 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'update_invoice' or 'record_payment' (which may also affect status). The intended use is implied by the name and description, but there are no explicit context or exclusionary instructions.

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