receipt_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a meaningful behavior: 'Returns false if the key does not exist.' It also lists allowed fields, implying invalid fields are not permitted. However, it does not address what happens for invalid field names/value types, whether changes persist immediately, or any permission/reversibility concerns.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the necessary `updates` contract, allowed fields, and failure behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the allowed-field list is formatted for easy scanning.

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 that an output schema exists and siblings like receipt_list/receipt_show can supply keys, the description covers the essential call contract: what it patches, which fields are allowed, and what happens if the receipt key is missing. It could be slightly more explicit about `key` being the receipt identifier and how partial updates interact with existing values, but it is adequate for a 2-parameter tool.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning to both parameters. It thoroughly explains `updates` as a JSON object of field → value and lists the allowed fields. The `key` parameter is only indirectly explained through 'existing receipt' and 'Returns false if the key does not exist,' which is useful but could be more explicit.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Patch specific fields of an existing receipt.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like receipt_add, receipt_delete, and receipt_show by indicating this is an update/modification operation, and it enumerates the allowed updatable fields.

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 phrase 'Patch specific fields of an existing receipt' gives clear context for when to use this tool: modifying an already-created receipt rather than adding, deleting, or reading it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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