Update Sale

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, rate limits, or details about idempotency. It merely repeats the action.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The key actions are front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, and annotations present, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain return values, error handling, or the max 50 IDs constraint (though present in schema). Could be more complete.

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 100%, but the description adds semantic grouping: 'mark sales as recurring, refunded, or update refund amounts' maps to parameters like isRecurringSale, isRefunded, and refundedAmount. This provides context beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 the action (update) and resource (sale records), and specifies common use cases (mark as recurring, refunded, update refund amounts). It distinguishes from sibling tools like hyros_refund_order and hyros_delete_sale.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies usage for updating sales but does not compare with alternatives like hyros_refund_order or mention prerequisites.

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