update_canned_service_fee

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 transparency. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, permissions, or failure modes. For example, it does not explain what happens if the fee item does not exist or whether the update is reversible.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse to provide adequate context. It does not explain the relationship between required parameters (cannedServiceId, itemId), any prerequisites (e.g., resource must exist), or the expected outcome of the update. This leaves an agent with insufficient information to use the tool confidently.

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?

Though schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are minimal and largely rephrase the parameter names (e.g., 'Updated quantity', 'Updated fee name'). A few descriptions add context (e.g., 'The fee line item ID to update'), but most lack detail about purpose or expected values. This meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 action: 'Update a fee line item on a canned service template.' It identifies the specific resource (fee line item) and the context (canned service template), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 over alternatives like add_canned_service_fee or remove_canned_service_fee. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this update is appropriate.

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