update_sale_receipt

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the mutation ('Update') without describing side effects, required receipt state, idempotency, or response behavior. It does not misrepresent the operation, so it is not a 1.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. There is no front-loaded detail beyond the name, so the sentence contributes no additional value.

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 free-form body parameter, the description is not complete enough to invoke correctly. It fails to explain what an update affects, what the body should contain, or any constraints around updating a sale receipt.

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 parameter meaning; neither 'id' (which has no schema description) nor the opaque 'body' object is explained. The schema offers only 'Request body passed through to Bigcapital' for body, leaving the identifier semantics and expected payload unknown.

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 'Update a sale receipt.' is an exact restatement of the tool name and adds no extra semantic detail about what updating entails. It identifies a verb and resource but does not distinguish this update from close_sale_receipt, create_sale_receipt, or the other update_* siblings.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided: there are no scenarios, exclusions, or mentions of when to prefer close_sale_receipt/get_sale_receipt or the other update_* tools. The only usage signal is implicit in the word 'update'.

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