update_receipt

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

The sole annotation is idempotentHint=true; the description adds patch semantics (send only changed fields), which is real behavioral context beyond the annotations. It says nothing about what happens to unspecified fields, whether changes to a receipt affect fiscal totals/VAT, whether confirmation is required, or how errors surface — gaps that matter for a mutation on a fiscal document.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: the operation, the resource with clarifying synonyms, and the patch instruction. It is efficient, though for a mutation tool with a free-form nested payload it is arguably over-terse rather than optimally sized.

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 a mutation on a fiscal document, a free-form nested 'data' object, no output schema, and only an idempotentHint annotation, the description carries too little: valid field names, effects on totals/period locks, and response behavior are all unaddressed. An agent can identify the tool but not safely construct the call from the description plus schema alone.

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 only 33%: company_id is documented in the schema, while id has no description and data is an untyped object with additionalProperties {} — the critical question of which fields may be passed is answered nowhere. The phrase 'passa solo i campi da cambiare' usefully establishes that data is a partial-field patch object, but it does not enumerate or link to valid keys, so it only partly compensates for the low coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource and disambiguates the Italian terminology ('Modifica un corrispettivo (scontrino / ricevuta giornaliera)'), which is genuinely needed because siblings like update_received_document and update_issued_document sound similar. It never names a sibling or says which document class it does NOT cover, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

'passa solo i campi da cambiare' gives a real usage rule for partial updates, which an agent would otherwise have to guess. However there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance (e.g. when to use update_receipt instead of delete_receipt + create_receipt, or vs update_received_document), and no prerequisites such as whether a company must be active or the receipt unlocked.

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