fiken_update_credit_note_draft

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already indicates mutation. The description merely repeats 'Updates' without disclosing side effects, authorization needs, or draft state dependencies (e.g., cannot update a processed draft).

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?

While very short, the description sacrifices necessary detail. It is under-specified, making it unhelpful for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior or 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 19 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks context about draft lifecycle, differences from other draft types, and any return value or confirmation.

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?

With only 11% schema description coverage, the description adds no additional meaning to the 19 parameters. Required fields like type with an enum are not explained in context (e.g., why 'cash_invoice' is listed for a credit note draft).

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 'Updates a credit note draft' clearly specifies the verb (updates) and the resource (credit note draft). It is distinct from siblings due to the 'credit_note' in the name, but it does not explicitly differentiate from other update draft 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating a new draft or updating other draft types. It lacks prerequisite information (e.g., draft must exist) and contextual conditions.

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