erp_dekont_duzenle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'düzenler' (edits) implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, potential side effects, or rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic edit action.

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 reasonably concise (two sentences) but could be more front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, while the second lists document types. However, the second sentence feels somewhat redundant since 'dekont başlıklarını' (receipt headers) already implies these document types in an ERP context.

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 mutation tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after editing (success/failure responses), error conditions, or important behavioral constraints. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and outcomes based solely on the parameter schema.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter well-documented in Turkish. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 the tool 'edits receipt headers in the ERP system' and lists specific document types (orders, quotes, invoices). This provides a specific verb+resource combination, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'erp_dekont_olustur' (create receipt) or 'erp_dekont_tamamla' (complete receipt).

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing receipt ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new receipts), or how it differs from sibling tools such as 'erp_dekont_olustur' or 'erp_dekont_tamamla'.

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