freshbooks_update_estimate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the dry-run behavior with no network call, the confirm gate, the whole-line-set replacement semantics, and the fact that it returns a re-fetched estimate. This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance an agent needs before calling a mutation tool.

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?

Four tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the most decision-critical behavioral details in logical order: patch semantics, confirm gate, line replacement warning, and return value. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite 14 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description tells an agent everything essential: how partial updates behave, how to actually execute (confirm:true), how to safely update lines, and what the response will be. No critical invocation detail is left to guesswork.

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 93%, so the schema already documents individual parameters well. The description adds cross-cutting meaning beyond the schema: partial-update semantics, the confirm requirement, and the lineid requirement to preserve existing lines. This elevates it above the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'Update an existing estimate.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from list/get/send/accept/decline siblings, even without naming them. The phrase 'existing estimate' also separates it from create-style tools.

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 strong operational guidance: only supplied fields are sent, omitted fields are untouched, and confirm:true is required to execute. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or conditions when NOT to use this tool, so it misses clear exclusions, but the context is otherwise unambiguous.

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