Receipts Update Receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds 'This may create or update Monarch data,' which communicates mutation and potential creation beyond the raw annotation flags. However, it does not disclose details like whether updates overwrite existing fields, how line items are merged, or any side effects of calling with openWorldHint true.

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 two short sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action. It is concise and easy to parse, though arguably too sparse for the complexity of the tool and its 12 parameters.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and a mutating operation, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how line_items are handled, what 'fields' and 'output_mode' control, whether the update is partial or full replacement, or what the return value looks like. An agent would need to inspect the schema carefully and still lack important operational context.

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 only 17%, and the tool description provides no parameter-level explanations. Most of the 12 parameters (tax, tip, grand_total, line_items, etc.) rely solely on their titles and types. Since the description needs to compensate for low schema coverage but does not, the agent receives little help understanding parameter semantics.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Update receipt.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like receipts_upload_receipt, receipts_delete_receipt, and receipts_match_receipt. However, the added clause 'This may create or update Monarch data' introduces some ambiguity about whether it can create new receipts or only update existing ones.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as receipts_upload_receipt or receipts_match_receipt. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the receipt must already exist, or what conditions would favor updating over other receipt operations.

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