Update Invoice Series

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the partial-update contract (only changed fields are sent), which is genuine behavioral context, but it omits what happens to unmentioned fields, validation behavior, or side effects on existing invoices.

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, zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded with the field list and the partial-update rule following immediately. Nothing extraneous.

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 7 parameters, full schema coverage, no nested objects, and annotations already carrying safety behavior, the description is largely sufficient and correctly flags the partial-update pattern. It stops just short of covering edge cases or the effect on invoices already issued under the series.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description maps its field list to those parameters but adds no format, constraint, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (invoice numbering series) and enumerates the mutable fields, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like update_invoice_info, create_invoice_series, and delete_invoice_series. The parenthetical field list pins down exactly what kind of update this is.

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?

'Pass only the fields to change' is a useful partial-update instruction, which is implied usage guidance. However, it never states when to use this tool versus create/delete siblings or get/list, and there are no prerequisites or exclusions.

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