brc_update_cash_receipt

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses the two-step preflight/confirmation mechanism, including that the first call returns a preview and the actual update requires a second call. It does not mention side effects or auth, but the core behavioral pattern is well explained.

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 sentences, all essential: purpose, two-step process, and warning. No redundant information. Effectively front-loaded.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and a complex confirmation workflow, the description covers the key usage pattern and output expectation (returns confirmation_required and preview). Could mention error cases or what happens after successful update, but overall sufficient.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds critical context for the confirmWrite parameter (explaining the two-step workflow) and reinforces the 'merged fields' semantics. This goes beyond the baseline 3.

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 'Updates a BRC cash receipt using merged fields,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools (e.g., brc_update_cash_payment), the name and description are sufficiently unique.

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?

Provides explicit step-by-step guidance: first call without confirmWrite for preview, then retry with confirmWrite after user confirmation. Includes clear what-not-to-do (passing preflight is not confirmation). This is excellent, differentiating it from similar tools.

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