Save current order invoice design settings to apply them to future invoices.
Save Order Invoice design settings
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "SaveOrderInvoiceDesignSettings"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only says 'Save' without disclosing what is modified, whether changes are reversible, required permissions, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand behavior.
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 very short (5 words). It is concise but lacks structure and detail, which could be acceptable for a simple tool. However, it omits valuable information that could be included without much length.
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 simple tool (no params, no output schema) and no annotations, the description is the sole source of context. It only states the action, not what settings are involved, any return value, or prerequisites. This is inadequate for full understanding.
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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds nothing about parameters since none exist. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as no additional meaning is needed.
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 verb 'Save' and resource 'Order Invoice design settings', indicating a write operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like GetOrderInvoiceDesignSettings (read) by implying mutation. However, it lacks specificity about which design settings are affected.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetOrderInvoiceDesignSettings for reading or previewing. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.