feegow_update_invoice_nfse_number

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses it's a write operation and requires an environment variable, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the invoice must be in a certain status) or error conditions. Adequate but basic.

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 a single efficient sentence plus the write flag and endpoint, front-loaded with category. Every element earns its place, no 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?

For a simple one-field update operation with no output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers purpose, write requirement, and endpoint. Could improve by mentioning typical response (e.g., success status), but not critical.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema: 'identifier da invoice' and 'novo numero da NFS-e' are already stated. Baseline 3.

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 'Atualiza' (updates) and the specific resource 'número da nota fiscal (NFS-e) de uma invoice', distinguishing it from siblings like feegow_find_invoice_by_nfse (read) and other invoice mutation tools.

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 indicates it is a write operation requiring FEEGOW_ALLOW_WRITES=true, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., if you need to find by NFSE number, use feegow_find_invoice_by_nfse).

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