Replace purchase fields and return or warranty policies with reviewed values; retrieve details first to preserve unchanged fields before saving updates.
Replace fields and policies with reviewed values. Retrieve details first to preserve fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| purchase | Yes | ||
| purchase_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds a crucial behavioral warning: it replaces fields, so data can be lost if not preserved, which is valuable context beyond the annotations. No auth or rate-limit details are provided, but the core risk is communicated.
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?
Two concise imperative sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the prerequisite. No wasted words.
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 tool with a complex nested input schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is insufficient. It omits any explanation of the purchase object structure, the purchase_id, or the meaning of the nested policies and field statuses. While it covers the high-level replacement behavior, it leaves too much unsaid for an agent to invoke correctly without inspecting the schema in detail.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it doesn't describe the 2 parameters (purchase_id and the nested purchase object). The baseline for 0 params is 4, but here we have 2 parameters (one nested) with no semantic explanation beyond the schema's own title. The schema's structure (additionalProperties=false, required product_name) is complex, and the description doesn't add meaning. However, the 'preserve fields' hint implies full replacement semantics for the purchase object.
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 verb 'Replace' and resource (fields/policies) make the update operation clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from update_purchase_status, which likely updates only the purchase status, leaving the boundary between the two update operations somewhat ambiguous.
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 second sentence 'Retrieve details first to preserve fields' gives a clear prerequisite and implies that fields not included will be lost. It doesn't explicitly mention when to prefer update_purchase_status over this tool, but the overall context is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.