update_estimate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says "Update" - it does not disclose whether this is a partial or full-replacement update, whether a SyncToken/version is required, whether unspecified fields are preserved, or what authorization scope is needed. QuickBooks Online updates conventionally require the full entity plus a SyncToken, so omitting that is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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?

It is a single efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded, so there is no wasted wording. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness - the sentence could easily carry update semantics without becoming bloated.

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 a nested, entirely undocumented payload object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description says almost nothing an agent needs in order to construct a valid call. The combination of 0% schema coverage and 0% description coverage leaves the required `estimate` payload completely unexplained.

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 single parameter is an untyped nested object (`estimate: {}`) with additionalProperties allowed, so the schema provides no field-level meaning at all. The description adds nothing about which estimate fields are updatable, their formats, or how the payload should be shaped, leaving the parameter entirely opaque.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Update an estimate") plus the product context (QuickBooks Online), so the agent knows exactly what entity is being mutated. It does not differentiate this tool from the many similarly named siblings like update_invoice, update_sales_receipt, or update_purchase, though the entity name is unambiguous enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 guidance on when to use this versus create_estimate, get_estimate, delete_estimate, or search_estimates, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing estimate ID or SyncToken. The agent must infer the usage pattern purely from the tool name.

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