beel_update_tax_configuration

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds concrete behavioral details: it explains coherence rules (regime key 18 only for IVA), specific error responses (422 INVALID_REGIME_KEY_FOR_TAX_TYPE, 422 RECARGO_REQUIRES_REGIME_RE), and that the operation replaces the whole configuration. This goes beyond the annotations and provides operationally useful context without contradicting them.

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 a single compact paragraph of about 90 words. It front-loads the core purpose, then quickly covers the most critical coherence constraint and error cases. There is no redundancy or filler; every sentence contributes operational value. This is exemplary for con</anner>

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?

The description covers the primary behavior, critical domain rules, and error responses for this write operation. It does not describe the success response or the exact structure of the updated configuration, but such details are not essential given the absence of an output schema and the fact that the schema already documents field behavior. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and anticipate common failures.

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?

The input schema already contains extensive descriptions for every field, including the nested TaxInfo, RegimeKey, PaymentMethod, and others, with detailed semantics and examples. The description primarily reiterates the high-level fields (default regime, percentage, IRPF, surcharge) without adding new meaning beyond the schema's own rich documentation. It thereby does not significantly enhance parameter understanding, though it does not hinder it either.

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 specifies a clear action ('Replaces the tax configuration of a company') and identifies the exact resource (NIF), the fields it covers (default tax regime, main percentage, regime key, IRPF, equivalence surcharge), and the endpoint (PUT /v1/companies/{company_id}/tax-configuration). This distinguishes it from the get_tax_configuration sibling and other update tools like beel_update_verifactu_configuration.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention conditions where another tool should be preferred. It implies its use by 'Replaces the tax configuration' but offers no guidance on alternatives (e.g., get_tax_configuration for reading, update_verifactu_configuration for VeriFactu-specific settings). It lacks 'when-not-to-use' or exclusion statements.

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