Update Sale Invoice

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that server-managed fields are rejected and that changing confirmed invoice dates requires invalidation. This adds useful context beyond annotations.

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: first sentence clearly states the purpose, second adds important constraints. No fluff, front-loaded, every sentence is valuable.

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 2 parameters, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral constraints (draft only, server-managed fields, confirmed dates). It doesn't describe return value or error handling, but for an update tool this is sufficient.

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 schema already describes parameters. The description adds that server-managed fields are rejected, which is additional context for the 'data' parameter, but not much else. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Update draft sales-invoice fields', which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_sale_invoice or confirm_sale_invoice by limiting to draft invoices and mentioning the need to invalidate confirmed ones.

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?

It says server-managed fields are rejected and confirmed invoice dates require invalidate_sale_invoice first, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for specific scenarios.

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