ghl_invoice_schedule_update_and_activate

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

Annotations indicate it is non-readOnly (mutation) and non-destructive. The description adds the OAuth scope for permissions but does not explain side effects such as whether it overrides existing settings or activates the schedule. No additional behavioral context beyond what annotations imply.

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 short but contains redundant phrasing ('Update scheduled recurring invoice API to update scheduled recurring invoice'). It could be more concise by removing the repetition and front-loading the core action.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., updated schedule object or success confirmation). The nuance between this tool and ghl_invoice_schedule_update is not clarified, leaving the agent with incomplete information.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and only one parameter (scheduleId), the description adds no extra meaning. The schema itself is sufficient. Baseline 3 is appropriate as no added 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 'Update scheduled recurring invoice' and repeats it, clearly indicating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ghl_invoice_schedule_activate and ghl_invoice_schedule_update by mentioning both update and schedule. However, it is slightly redundant and could explicitly state the dual action of updating and activating.

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 vs alternatives like ghl_invoice_schedule_update or ghl_invoice_schedule_activate. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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