Update received document (expense)

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds crucial context: only provided fields are changed (partial update), which clarifies the destructive nature (only changing specified fields). It also advises fetching first, which mitigates destructive actions. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word earns its place. The instruction to fetch first is practical and includes a sibling tool name. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, optional fields, no output schema), the description covers the core update semantics and the key prerequisite (fetch first). It doesn't detail return values or error scenarios, but the schema and annotations fill in much of the context. For an update tool, this is adequately complete, though a note on return values would push it to 5.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds meaning to the 'data' parameter by clarifying that only provided fields are changed, which is a significant semantic beyond the schema. This compensates for the lack of per-parameter elaboration, earning a 4 rather than the baseline 3.

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 resource ('existing received document'), clearly distinguishing it from create/delete siblings. It also implies the scope (expense) via the title, and mentions the need to fetch first, reinforcing the update use case.

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 explicit guidance to fetch the current state with get_received_document before updating, which is a clear when-to-use instruction. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus update_issued_document, but the resource type is clear from the name and siblings. The guidance is sufficient for correct tool selection.

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