Receipts Update Receipt Settings

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and is not idempotent. The description adds only the vague statement 'This may create or update Monarch data,' which does not meaningfully clarify side effects, what settings are affected, whether changes are reversible, or what happens to existing settings. It offers little behavioral insight beyond what annotations already convey.

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 very short and front-loads the main action, so it is not bloated. However, the second sentence is mostly vague and uninformative, and the overall brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient completeness.

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 tool with four parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description should explain the settings being updated, the effect of each parameter, and any relevant caveats. It does none of this, so an agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional 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 50%. The auto_categorize and update_transaction_notes parameters have no descriptions, and the tool description does not explain them or provide any additional meaning. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters, leaving the agent without enough information to understand what values are meaningful.

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 clearly states the action 'Update receipt settings' and the resource (receipt settings), so an agent can tell this is a mutation of settings rather than a retrieval like receipts_get_receipt_settings. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from related receipt mutation tools, and the phrase 'may create or update Monarch data' introduces mild ambiguity about whether this creates records.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as receipts_get_receipt_settings, receipts_update_receipt, or other settings-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions that would indicate this tool is the right choice.

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