recurring_invoices_bulk_toggle_active

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description usefully clarifies that pausing stops invoice generation rather than deleting anything. However it is silent on the mutation's real risks: whether partial failures across the batch are reported, what happens to ids already in the target state, and whether per-id results are returned (no output schema exists). Note a mild tension with idempotentHint=false, since setting active to a fixed boolean should be repeatable.

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 padding: the operation size is stated first, then the boolean semantics. Nothing to cut.

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 bulk mutation with no output schema, an agent still needs to know how per-invoice outcomes and failures are surfaced, and whether re-sending an already-applied state is a no-op or an error. Those gaps keep it at minimum-viable rather than complete.

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 ids, active and companyId, and the description only restates the active semantics. It adds nothing about the companyId override behavior or batch limits, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (bulk status toggle of recurring invoices) and the phrase "multiple recurring invoices at once" scopes it apart from the singular recurring_invoices_toggle and from the bulk_delete/bulk_issue_now siblings. An agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

"multiple ... at once" plus "active=true to resume or active=false to pause invoice generation" makes the use case clear: apply one state to many. It never explicitly says to use recurring_invoices_toggle for a single invoice or names any exclusion, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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