recurring_invoices_toggle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does explain the toggling behavior and its side effect (enabling/disabling automatic invoice generation), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose the state-transition nature beyond the immediate toggle, potential consequences of pausing (e.g., affecting scheduled generation), reversibility, or the return value/confirmation response after the call.

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, the first states exactly what it does with the toggle verb and resource, the second clarifies the bidirectional behavior. Zero waste, fully front-loaded with the outcome stated first.

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?

This is a simple 2-param, single-required-param tool with no output schema or nested objects, so the burden is modest. The description covers the core behavior and effect. However, with no annotations and no explicit return-value or confirmation info, and the existence of a bulk_toggle_active sibling, a slightly richer statement about the response or how to verify success would improve completeness.

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 100%, with both parameters (uuid and companyId) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states. The description mentions 'active status' conceptually but adds no new parameter context, landing at the baseline for high 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 clearly states the tool toggles the active status of a recurring invoice template to pause or resume automatic generation, with a specific verb (toggle) and resource (recurring invoice template active status). It distinguishes from siblings like recurring_invoices_update/delete and bulk_toggle_active through the single-template toggle scope, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 the effect (pause if active, resume if paused) giving operational context, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs the bulk_toggle_active sibling, nor mention any prerequisites like ownership or company selection. Usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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