fiken_update_sale_draft

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, confirming a write operation. The description adds no further behavioral traits, such as side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens to existing data (e.g., whether partial updates are allowed). It merely restates the tool's purpose.

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 the description is short (one sentence), it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. Conciseness should not sacrifice essential information. The tool has 12 parameters and is a mutating operation; the description should at a minimum list the main updatable fields.

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 the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, write operation), the description is severely lacking. It does not explain the update semantics (partial vs full replacement), return value (if any), or how to specify which draft to update. An agent would be ill-equipped to use this tool correctly.

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 schema description coverage at only 42%, the description should compensate by explaining key parameters or the structure of update requests. Instead, it offers no parameter information at all. An agent cannot determine which fields are updatable, required, or how they relate without inspecting 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 clearly states the action ('updates') and the resource ('a sale draft'), which matches the tool name. However, it does not differentiate this update tool from similar update tools for other draft types (e.g., invoice draft, credit note draft), leaving the agent to infer the specific resource from the tool name alone.

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 create or delete sale draft, or when to use other update draft tools. The agent receives no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when this tool is appropriate.

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