Update a salesbook invoice

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds no behavioral detail such as partial vs full replacement, permission requirements, or effects on existing data. It does not contradict annotations, but also does not enrich them.

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 brief and front-loaded with the essential action. The HTTP endpoint line adds concrete detail without waste, though the first sentence repeats the tool title.

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 an update operation, the description omits important context such as whether it is a full replacement (typical for PUT) or a partial update, and what the response contains. With no output schema and no mention of side effects, an agent gets only the bare minimum.

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 input schema already documents the parameters thoroughly, including the 'body' object with field-level descriptions. The description adds minimal semantic value ('by ID' aligns with the id parameter), and with 67% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Update') and a specific resource ('existing salesbook invoice by ID'), which distinguishes it from creating or listing salesbook invoices. It directly identifies the operation's target, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like create_salesbook_invoice or update_sales_invoice. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate.

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