update_ledger_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states what fields can be updated and what cannot, but it does not disclose whether the update is partial or full replacement, whether it requires specific permissions, whether it is idempotent, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with 14 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence plus a clear exclusion sentence. It is concise and front-loads the main action. The exclusion is valuable and placed at the end. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by grouping parameters.

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 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the required company_id, the role of ledger_id, the format of vehicle_numbers, or the meaning of is_non_occupied. It also does not state what the tool returns or whether it is a partial update. An agent would need to guess at several parameter semantics.

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 compensate. The description names several fields (contact, address, parking slots, non-occupied status, vehicle numbers) but does not map them to the actual parameter names (e.g., 'contact' vs 'contact', 'parking slots' vs 'two_wheeler_parking_count' and 'four_wheeler_parking_count'). It also omits several parameters like city, state, flat_no, pincode, ledger_id, ledger_name, email, and company_id. The description adds some meaning but leaves many parameters unexplained.

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 states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('ledger contact') and enumerates the specific fields that can be updated (contact, address, parking slots, non-occupied status, vehicle numbers). It also explicitly lists what cannot be updated (GSTIN/PAN/Legal Name), which helps distinguish it from a generic update tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like create_receipt or create_payment, though those are clearly different operations.

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 implies usage: use this tool when you need to update contact or address details for a ledger. It does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The explicit 'CANNOT update GSTIN/PAN/Legal Name' provides a partial exclusion, but there is no guidance on when to prefer a sibling tool or what prerequisites exist (e.g., ledger must exist).

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