vat_editModify an existing VAT rate by its ID. All fields are optional except the ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the VAT rate to modify | |
| rate | No | VAT percentage rate (e.g. 20 for 20%) | |
| legal | No | Legal reference or note for this VAT rate | |
| title | No | Name/label for the VAT rate (e.g. 'Standard 20%') | |
| accountingChapter | No | Accounting chapter code for this VAT rate |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool modifies by ID and that fields are optional, but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits such as permission requirements, concurrency behavior, or what happens if the ID does not exist.
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 consists of two concise sentences that clearly state the tool's purpose and the key constraint about optional fields. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding.
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 edit tool with 5 scalar parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameter optionality. It could mention what happens if the ID is invalid or if there are conflicts, but given the simplicity, it is mostly complete.
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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds a high-level note that only the ID is required and other fields are optional, which is already implied by the schema's required array. No additional semantic information is provided.
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 uses the verb 'Modify' and specifies the resource 'VAT rate' by its ID. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools vat_add and vat_delete by indicating that this tool edits an existing rate rather than adding or deleting.
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 states that all fields except ID are optional, implying that only the fields to be changed need to be provided. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over its siblings (vat_add, vat_delete) or provide any scenario-based guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct entity or action (account, client, order, product, payment, VAT, etc.), with clear naming like 'account_create' vs 'account_edit' and 'data_list_' prefixed listings. No overlapping purposes detected.
All tool names use snake_case and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., account_create, client_add, data_list_clients). Even compound names like auth_login_with_otp adhere to this structure.
41 tools is high but justified by the wide scope of a POS/accounting system (accounts, clients, orders, products, payments, VAT, reports). Slightly above the typical range but well-scoped.
The tool surface covers CRUD for all major entities (clients, departments, products, VAT, payment modes, orders), plus queries, reports, and authentication. No obvious gaps for a small business management server.