update_bill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Update a bill' implies mutation but does not state whether the update is destructive, requires special permissions, replaces the entire bill, or has side effects on related records like bill payments. The agent is left without critical behavioral context.

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 short sentence with no wasted words and the core verb is front-loaded. However, it is so terse it borders on under-specification, though for sheer efficiency of expression it earns a high score.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter that is undefined except as a passthrough. The description leaves unanswered crucial questions: what fields can be updated, what constraints apply to 'id', what the response looks like, and whether the update is partial or full replacement. The description is far from complete for an agent to invoke it 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?

The description adds no meaning to the parameters. The schema already documents the 'body' parameter as a passthrough to Bigcapital, but the 'id' parameter lacks description and the tool description does not clarify how the parameters relate to the update operation. With only 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('a bill'), making the tool's core function evident. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_bill, get_bill, and open_bill by the action it performs, though it lacks any explanation of what updating a bill entails.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_bill or open_bill. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or situations where other tools would be more appropriate. The usage context is entirely left to inference 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.