alter_master

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety/behavior burden. 'Only given fields change' usefully discloses partial-update semantics, but it does not mention permissions, reversibility, backup behavior, or what the response looks like.

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 operation and scope. Every clause adds relevant information without repetition 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?

For an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is very thin. It omits dry-run behavior, backup implications, error/response expectations, and guidance on the less obvious parameters.

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 73%, close to the high-coverage baseline, and the schema already documents most parameters. The description reinforces partial updates but does not explain parameters such as new_name, extra_xml, or dry_run beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb ('Modify / rename') and enumerates the exact master types handled. By listing account group, stock group, godown, unit, and cost centre, it distinguishes this tool from sibling tools such as alter_ledger and alter_stock_item.

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 listed master types imply when the tool applies, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of create_master, delete_master, alter_ledger, or alter_stock_item. Usage is inferable but not set out.

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