Update invoice

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

Annotations already signal destructive behavior and non-idempotence, and the description adds important context by warning that voiding is 'irreversible in practice' and only appropriate for unpaid invoices. It also discloses that this wraps Invoices.edit, giving a bit of implementation grounding beyond the annotations.

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 three tight sentences with the core edit capability first, followed by the irreversible void warning and the line-item exclusion. Every sentence adds actionable information with no filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the key fields, the dangerous void behavior, and the important limitation that line items cannot be edited here. It could go further by noting permission requirements or response behavior, but it is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 only 50%, and the description partially compensates by naming status, due date, billed date, and notes. However, it does not explain the distinction between note_public and note_private, and it adds little beyond the schema's existing descriptions for the date fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('invoice header fields') and enumerates the exact editable fields. It also distinguishes itself from line-item editing, so an agent can tell it apart from the related invoices/edit path.

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?

It explicitly states that line items are not editable here and directs the agent to use blesta_call invoices/edit with `lines` instead. It also gives a concrete usage condition for the `void` status, clarifying when this tool should be invoked.

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