Update Invoice Series

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

The description adds the behavioral insight that only provided fields are changed (partial update), which goes beyond the annotations (non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). There is no mention of permissions, rate limits, or side effects, but the annotations already cover safety and idempotency.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and includes essential guidance without any 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and identifies the key fields. It could be improved by mentioning that unchanged fields remain as-is, but the partial update hint suffices. Overall, it is sufficient for an update tool with 7 parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description lists the fields (prefix, start value, etc.) but does not add meaning beyond the schema descriptions, such as constraints, format, or relationships between parameters.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('invoice numbering series'), and lists the specific fields that can be changed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_invoice_series, delete_invoice_series, get_invoice_series, and list_invoice_series.

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 includes the important guidance 'Pass only the fields to change,' which implies a partial update behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus create_invoice_series (for new series) or delete_invoice_series (for removal), nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions.

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