Modify an existing KikoBooks bill, including memo, due date, bill number, or status. Full edits apply only to DRAFT or PENDING bills; approved and voided bills are restricted.
Update an existing bill in KikoBooks. Only DRAFT/PENDING bills can be fully edited.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bill | Yes | ||
| bill_id | Yes | The Bill ID to update |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only one trait (editable statuses), but says nothing about what happens to an APPROVED/VOIDED bill, whether this is a partial/patch update, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, or what permissions are required for a mutation.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the key precondition second. Nothing redundant or padded.
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 no annotations, no output schema, a nested object parameter, and partial schema coverage, the description is too thin. It omits update semantics (full vs. partial), behavior for non-editable statuses, and any notion of the result, leaving real gaps an agent must guess at.
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 description coverage is only 50% — the top-level 'bill' container object has no description, and the description text adds no semantics for any parameter. It neither explains the container's shape nor clarifies that only a subset of fields is updatable, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing bill') and names the product domain (KikoBooks), so an agent can identify the operation immediately. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as void_bill, update_purchase, or update_invoice, so it stops short of a 5.
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 constraint 'Only DRAFT/PENDING bills can be fully edited' gives an important precondition for use, but it is left ambiguous — it implies APPROVED/VOIDED bills can be partially edited without saying how, and it never names alternatives (e.g. void_bill to cancel an APPROVED bill). Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.