lexware_deeplink_dunningGet a direct link to view or edit a specific dunning in the Lexware Office web app as soon as you have its UUID.
Get a direct link to view/edit a dunning in the Lexware web app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Dunning UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it returns a link for viewing/editing, which is consistent but doesn't provide additional behavioral details like authentication requirements or error scenarios. With annotations present, this is adequate.
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 a single, concise sentence of 12 words with no unnecessary information. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose and result, but could mention the format of the link or that it's read-only (though annotations cover safety).
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 100% and the description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for the 'id' parameter. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Get a direct link') and the resource ('a dunning'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like lexware_get_dunning (which retrieves data) and lexware_deeplink_voucher (different resource).
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use deeplink vs. get_dunning or pursue_dunning). The agent is left to infer without explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.