Update Tax Code

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

Beyond the annotation hints, the description discloses rich behavioral context: PATCH partial-update semantics, the payload nesting behavior ('nested under tax_code in the request payload for you'), success return shape ('Returns the modified tax code on success'), and detailed failure modes with specific HTTP status meanings (401 token expired, 403 missing permission, 404 unresolvable id). This far exceeds the bare hints in the annotations.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loaded with the core purpose and logically progressing through usage, prerequisites, return value, and error handling. Every sentence earns its place except the minor redundancy of restating 'Required parameters: id, company_id,' which duplicates the schema's required array.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers purpose, partial-update behavior, payload mapping, id-resolution prerequisite, return format, error payloads with status-code meanings, and the API endpoint location. Nothing operationally critical is left unexplained.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful parameter semantics: top-level arguments map to a nested tax_code payload, omitted optional fields retain their current values, and id must refer to an existing parent record. These insights go beyond the per-field schema descriptions and help the agent understand how parameters relate to the API request.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Update a Tax Code's attributes,' which precisely identifies the action and scope. It also reinforces the purpose with the PATCH endpoint and partial-update semantics, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_tax_code, show_tax_code, and list_tax_codes.

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 gives clear usage context: it explains partial-update behavior ('Send only the fields you intend to change') and instructs the agent to resolve the id with 'the matching list tool first,' which provides an alternative-workflow reference. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like create_tax_code for new records or show_tax_code for reads, so exclusions are implied rather than stated.

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