update_revenue_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. While it hints at state machine behavior via the example, it fails to mention side effects, validation rules for state transitions, notifications triggered, or error conditions for invalid updates.

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?

Single efficient sentence with parenthetical example. Front-loaded purpose with zero waste. Appropriate density though brevity limits behavioral disclosure given lack of annotations.

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?

Mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and only basic state workflow description. Lacks critical safety context: valid transition rules, permissions required, irreversibility warnings, or failure modes expected for financial data operations.

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 coverage is 67% (id and notes described). The description implicitly documents valid status values through the workflow example, adding semantic context beyond raw schema, but doesn't explicitly map parameter meanings or transition constraints.

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?

Clear verb (Update) and resource (revenue entry status) with concrete state workflow example (pending → submitted → paid). Doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling `add_revenue_entry` (create vs update).

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 state transition example implies workflow progression, providing implicit usage context. However, no explicit guidance on when to use vs `add_revenue_entry`, prerequisites, or invalid transition handling.

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