recurring_invoices_bulk_toggle_active

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description discloses that it toggles active status but doesn't reveal what happens to existing invoices in progress, whether the pause prevents future generation only or affects already-scheduled invoices, or any side effects. For a mutation operation with no annotation coverage, more behavioral context is needed.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. The active=true/false mapping is front-loaded and concise. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is efficient.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a clear bulk API. It covers the core semantics but lacks behavioral details about failure handling, partial success, or impact on ongoing invoice generation. It's adequate for a simple bool-toggle operation, though a note on atomicity/partial failure would help.

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 three parameters (ids, active, companyId) well. The description reinforces the ids and active semantics ('active=true to resume or active=false to pause') which adds a tiny bit of value but largely duplicates schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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+resource combination ('Toggle the active/paused status of multiple recurring invoices') and clearly distinguishes this bulk operation from sibling tools like recurring_invoices_toggle (singular), recurring_invoices_update, and recurring_invoices_bulk_issue_now. The description unambiguously states what action occurs.

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 implies usage by describing the action but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs recurring_invoices_toggle (single) or recurring_invoices_update. It also doesn't note that this is a bulk alternative or whether partial failures occur. Context is reasonable but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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