update_sales_receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'update' implying mutation but does not describe destructive behavior, permission requirements, partial vs full update semantics, or side effects. The required sync_token for optimistic locking is not explained in the description.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, avoiding unnecessary words. However, it could be expanded slightly to include critical usage hints without becoming verbose.

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?

The description lacks completeness for a mutation tool. It does not explain the return value (no output schema), error conditions, or the need for a sync_token to prevent conflicts. Given the complexity of updating a sales receipt in QuickBooks, more contextual details are needed for correct usage.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'Sync token for optimistic locking'). With high schema coverage, the description adds no extra meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameter semantics.

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 'Update an existing sales receipt in QuickBooks Online', specifying the verb (update), resource (sales receipt), and system (QuickBooks Online). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_sales_receipt, delete_sales_receipt, and get_sales_receipt.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like needing a valid sync_token for optimistic locking nor when to avoid updating. Without any usage context, the agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios.

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