Update an existing invoice by changing its status, total, due date, or payment date. Correct inaccuracies or modify invoice data directly in BoondManager.
Update an existing invoice
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| total | No | ||
| paidAt | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| dueDate | No | ||
| issuedAt | No | ||
| companyId | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update an existing invoice,' implying mutation but gives no details on side effects, authorization requirements, idempotency, or error behavior (e.g., what happens if the invoice does not exist). 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?
The description is concise (one sentence) and front-loads the action 'Update,' which is positive. However, it is so brief that it fails to provide necessary context, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It earns a middle score because it avoids verbosity but sacrifices substance.
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?
With 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or which parameters are mutually exclusive (if any). An agent would need substantial additional inference to call this tool correctly, making the description inadequate for the tool's complexity.
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 has 8 parameters with zero description coverage (no descriptions in the schema), and the tool description does not mention any of them. The agent is left to guess the meaning of fields like 'total,' 'paidAt,' and 'status' purely from their names and types. The description adds no value beyond the schema structure.
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 states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('existing invoice'), which immediately distinguishes it from the create and read siblings (boond_invoices_create, boond_invoices_get/search). The word 'existing' implies modification of a record, making the purpose unambiguous, though it does not enumerate which fields are updatable (that is left to the schema).
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state that the invoice must already exist, nor does it reference the create or get tools for context. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the name and the required 'id' parameter, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.