edit_bill

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: DepartmentRef is header-level only (lines don't support department), and line modifications (add, update, delete via line_id and delete flag). Also mentions draft mode for validation without saving. Lacks info on permanence or permissions.

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?

Concise two-sentence description focusing on core function and key details. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by essential behavioral notes. No redundant information.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers critical behaviors (line editing, department scoping, draft mode). Missing return value description, but overall adequate for a modification tool.

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?

Adds significant value beyond schema: explains line modification logic (line_id for update, omit for add, delete=true to remove) and clarifies department scoping. All parameters have schema descriptions, but the description enhances understanding.

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 explicitly states 'Modify an existing bill' with specific updatable fields (vendor, date, due date, memo, lines). This clearly conveys the tool's function and distinguishes it from other edit tool siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_bill or delete_entity. The description implies 'edit an existing bill' but does not provide a clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement.

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