Update Voucher

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, not destructive), so the description's job is to add context. It does so by disclosing the optimistic-locking version requirement and the unchecked→open status transition constraint, which are non-obvious behavioral rules an agent must respect.

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 tight sentences with the core action and the key constraint front-loaded. The second sentence duplicates the schema's body description, so there is minor redundancy but no wasted padding.

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 a mutation tool with a free-form body object (additionalProperties, no field guidance) and no output schema, the description covers the locking and status rules but leaves unanswered whether the body replaces or merges existing voucher fields, which matters for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description essentially restates the body parameter's schema description rather than adding new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents both parameters and their constraints.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (bookkeeping voucher) and names the key mechanism (current version for optimistic locking). It is clear against siblings like lexware_get_voucher or lexware_create_voucher, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead.

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?

Provides an important conditional rule (unchecked vouchers must transition to open), which implies when this tool applies. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions beyond that one status case.

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