update_deposit

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether the update is a full replace or a partial merge, not that sync_token implies optimistic-concurrency/stale-write failure, not what happens to existing line items or fields omitted from the payload. Only the bare fact of mutability is conveyed by the word 'Update'.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains zero wasted words, which is structurally clean. However, its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency, so it cannot score higher.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a nested free-form params object, this description is far too thin. An agent has no information about required-field semantics, failure modes, or what the response contains, leaving it to guess how to invoke the tool correctly.

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% and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. Critically, the params object allows additionalProperties, meaning arbitrary QuickBooks deposit fields can be passed, yet the description never explains this extensibility or what fields are valid — a significant omission that the schema alone does not resolve.

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 ('Update a deposit') scoped to QuickBooks Online, so an agent knows exactly what entity is being mutated. It does not distinguish this from siblings like delete_deposit, get_deposit, or create_deposit beyond the verb, but the verb is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call get_deposit first to obtain the required sync_token, nothing explains when to use update_deposit versus delete_deposit plus create_deposit, and no prerequisites or permissions are mentioned. An agent must infer the entire workflow from the required parameters alone.

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