conduyt_update_invoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It helpfully states the draft-only precondition and the paid/voided exclusion, but does not describe replacement behavior for items, permission requirements, reversibility, or side effects of the update.

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 two tight sentences with zero waste. The mutable field overview is front-loaded and the eligibility restriction follows immediately.

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?

The schema is fully documented, but the description does not clarify partial-update semantics, what happens to omitted fields, or authorization requirements. For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, those gaps leave the definition only adequate.

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%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters in detail. The description mentions only a subset of fields and adds no syntax or usage detail beyond the schema baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Update a draft invoice') and lists the mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what operation this is. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling invoice tools like get_invoice or send_invoice, though the scope is clear.

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 provides a clear eligibility condition: only draft invoices can be updated, and paid or voided invoices cannot. It does not name alternative tools for those restricted cases, which prevents a 5.

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