Update a sales invoice

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. However, it misses the PUT semantics: the schema's attachments field hint implies a full replacement on PUT, but the description does not state this. The concept-status constraint is useful but not enough to earn a higher score.

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 concise, with two sentences and an endpoint reference. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the critical status condition. No redundant words or filler. The structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

Given the detailed input schema and annotations, the description is mostly sufficient, but it fails to disclose the PUT replacement behavior, which significantly impacts how an agent constructs the body. It also does not mention return values or error conditions for non-concept-status invoices. The missing PUT semantics is a notable gap in a complete context.

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?

The description mentions updating 'by ID', which maps to the id parameter, and the schema covers all parameters with detailed nested descriptions. Schema description coverage is 67%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The schema's comprehensive field-level documentation carries the bulk of semantic value.

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 states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('a sales invoice'), and specifies the operation is done by ID. It also names siblings like create_sales_invoice and get_sales_invoice, and the 'by ID' qualifier distinguishes it from creation or listing. The requirement for concept status further clarifies what this tool does.

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 gives a clear context: the invoice must be in concept status, which is a key prerequisite. It does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives, but the update semantics are self-evident and the status condition provides practical guidance. No exclusions or alternatives are named, but the single constraint is enough for a clear use case.

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