update_sale_invoiceUpdate draft sales-invoice fields, but server-managed fields are rejected. For confirmed invoice dates, call invalidate_sale_invoice first.
Update draft sales-invoice fields. Server-managed fields are rejected; confirmed invoice dates require invalidate_sale_invoice first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Invoice ID | |
| data | Yes | Object with fields to update. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.29.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.18.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it discloses that server-managed fields will be rejected (a failure mode) and that confirmed invoice dates demand a prior invalidate_sale_invoice call (a workflow precondition). It omits the response shape, but no output schema exists to cover that either.
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 dense sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the constraints following immediately. Every clause carries usable information.
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 a two-parameter update tool with a fully-described schema and no output schema, the description covers scope, failure conditions, and a prerequisite sibling call. The main remaining gap is what a successful update returns, which is minor given the absence of an output schema.
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% for both parameters (id, data), so the schema already documents them. The description adds no syntax, format, or field-level detail for 'data', so the 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Update draft sales-invoice fields') and adds a scoping qualifier ('draft') that separates it from confirm_sale_invoice and invalidate_sale_invoice. It stops short of naming the draft-vs-confirmed boundary for all field types, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.
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?
Gives an explicit when-not ('server-managed fields are rejected') and a named alternative for a specific case ('confirmed invoice dates require invalidate_sale_invoice first'). Useful routing, though the alternative is tied to one narrow field case rather than the general confirmed-invoice path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.