Update existing estimate details, including items, dates, notes, and template, by providing the estimate ID.
Update fields on an existing estimate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| estimateId | Yes | ||
| expiry_date | No | ||
| estimate_date | No | ||
| template_name | No | ||
| reference_number | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds that this updates fields rather than performing some other action, but it does not clarify whether the update is partial or full replacement, whether totals are recalculated, or what side effects occur.
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 sentence is short, clear, and front-loaded with the core verb and resource. It contains no filler, though it is so concise that it omits useful detail.
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 7 inputs, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, a single generic sentence is inadequate. An agent would not know update merging semantics, accepted date formats, whether items replace the full list, or what a successful response looks like.
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 names none of the 7 parameters. It does not even mention that estimateId is required or that all other fields are optional. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema property names.
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 specific verb ('Update') and a clear resource ('existing estimate'), which distinguishes it from siblings like create_estimate, delete_estimate, send_estimate, and convert_estimate_to_invoice. The high-level operation is immediately obvious.
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 phrase 'existing estimate' conveys that this tool is for modifying an already-created estimate, providing clear context and differentiating it from creation and deletion tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.