Edit an existing estimate's line items, dates, notes, or reference number to keep your records accurate.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the update is partial or full-replacement, whether omitted fields are preserved, whether changing items discards existing line items, or what permissions are required — all critical for a mutation tool with a nested array parameter.
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 clean, front-loaded, and free of filler. However, at this level of brevity it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise given the tool's complexity.
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, 7 parameters at 0% coverage, and a nested items structure, the description is far too thin. An agent would need to infer partial-update semantics, list-replacement behavior, and field formats on its own.
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% across 7 parameters, and the description adds nothing about any of them. The nested 'items' array with required name/quantity/price, the currency semantics of 'price', and the date fields are all left entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 names a clear verb ('update') and resource ('estimate'), so an agent immediately knows this mutates an existing estimate record. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as update_invoice or create_estimate beyond the resource name, but no such differentiation is serious for such an obvious pairing.
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 tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_estimate for new records, convert_estimate_to_invoice for conversion), nor on prerequisites such as required permissions or estimate state. The phrase 'existing estimate' weakly implies the record must already exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.