update_refund_receipt

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

The description only states the action 'Update' without any behavioral details. With no annotations, it fails to disclose important traits such as the need for sync_token for optimistic locking, permission requirements, or idempotency.

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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficiently front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 mutation tool with nested parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits details on return values, error handling, and important context like the role of sync_token or optional parameters.

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 50%, and the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain parameter usage or constraints, leaving the agent with incomplete understanding.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing refund receipt', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not specify which fields can be updated nor distinguish itself from other update tools for different entities, resulting in a slight deduction.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., create_refund_receipt, delete_refund_receipt). The description only implies usage for modifying existing records, but lacks explicit context or prerequisites.

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