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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses mutation semantics, the finalized-document restriction, and the empty-string clearing behavior, but omits permissions, side effects, and return behavior.

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?

Three tightly written sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, followed by field examples, clearing semantics, and the finalized restriction.

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 23-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits auth requirements, whether unspecified fields are preserved, failure behavior beyond finalization, and any response 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?

Schema coverage is only 22%, so the description must compensate. It groups updatable fields and adds the important empty-string clearing rule, but many parameters and their formats remain unexplained beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource ('Change anything on a bill of sale') and scopes it to non-finalized documents. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like sale_create and sale_finalize, which handle creation and finalization.

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?

It gives a clear condition for use ('not finalized yet') and an explicit when-not ('A finalized document cannot be edited'). It does not name alternative tools, but the usage boundary is unambiguous.

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