Modifier une facture

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

The description specifies partial update behavior, adding value beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It clarifies that only provided fields change, but does not disclose side effects like triggering workflows or audit trails.

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?

Two sentences, 17 words. Concise and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second sentence clarifies partial update. No superfluous content.

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 an update tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior. However, it lacks information on error handling (e.g., missing invoice), validation constraints on fields like state, or what the response contains.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter information but reinforces the partial update concept, which aligns with the 'optional fields' schema.

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 clearly states the action ('met à jour') and resource ('une facture existante'). It adds the nuance of partial updates ('Seuls les champs fournis sont modifiés'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, get, or search.

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 implies when to use (update an existing invoice) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives (e.g., create for new invoices, delete to remove). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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