ksef_update_invoice_draft

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

The description provides minimal behavioral information beyond 'update'. It does not disclose idempotency, side effects of confirmations, or whether patch is a partial or full update. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are not contradicted, but the description adds little transparency.

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 sentence that starts with the verb 'Update', making it concise and front-loaded. However, it omits essential details, so conciseness slightly compromises completeness.

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 tool has three parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain how patch works, what confirmations are for, or how this differs from other draft-related tools. Significant gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must clarify parameter meaning. It mentions 'facts or confirmations' but does not explain how 'facts' map to the patch object or the role of confirmations (a map of booleans). This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 tool updates an invoice draft with user-provided facts or confirmations. It specifies the verb and resource, but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like ksef_prepare_invoice or ksef_validate_invoice_draft.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ksef_start_invoice_draft or ksef_submit_invoice. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or workflows.

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