recurring_invoices_toggle

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

The description usefully spells out the state machine ('if active, it will be paused; if paused, it will be resumed'), which explains the non-idempotent annotation in concrete terms. It does not disclose whether already-scheduled generations are cancelled, permission requirements, or what the response returns, so it goes only modestly beyond the annotation set.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in one sentence, with the state-transition detail immediately after. The second sentence largely restates the first in conditional form, so there is mild redundancy but no bloat.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It still leaves out side effects on pending/scheduled invoices and what the caller gets back, which matters for a state-changing operation.

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%, so both the uuid and the companyId override are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter semantics, which is acceptable but not additive; 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?

States a specific verb and resource (toggle active status of a recurring invoice template) plus the business effect (pause/resume automatic invoice generation). It is distinguishable from siblings such as recurring_invoices_update or recurring_invoices_delete, though it never names the near-duplicate bulk variant recurring_invoices_bulk_toggle_active.

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?

Usage is implied by the pause/resume framing, so an agent can infer this is the flip-the-flag tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus recurring_invoices_update (which could also change the active flag) or recurring_invoices_bulk_toggle_active, and no stated preconditions.

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