ghl_invoice_update

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false. The description adds 'Update invoice' but no further behavioral context (e.g., whether it performs a partial or full replacement, side effects, or validation). It does not contradict annotations.

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 three lines, front-loading the core purpose. However, it could be more efficient by omitting endpoint and scope details that might be elsewhere, but overall no fluff.

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 tool's complexity (many nested parameters, one of many invoice tools) and absence of output schema, the description lacks important context: update scope, response details, field constraints, and differentiation from similar tools.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage with detailed field descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., parameter behavior, constraints, or examples). 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 clearly states 'Update invoice' and specifies the action is by invoice ID. It differentiates from sibling tools like ghl_invoice_create, ghl_invoice_delete, etc. by explicitly naming the verb and resource.

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 alternatives (e.g., create, delete, list). It does not mention prerequisites, partial vs full update, or conditions for use.

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