lexware_update_voucherUpdate an existing bookkeeping voucher in Lexware by providing its ID and updated data; use the version field to prevent overwriting concurrent changes.
Update an existing bookkeeping voucher in Lexware. Requires version field for optimistic locking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Voucher UUID | |
| body | Yes | Voucher JSON with version field for optimistic locking |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds transparency about the version field requirement for concurrency control. No contradictions with annotations.
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 extremely concise at two sentences and 14 words, with no superfluous information. The action and key requirement are front-loaded.
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?
Despite having annotations and schema coverage, the description lacks information about the return value (no output schema) and does not explain what the body should contain beyond the version field. The tool's response is not described, leaving the agent with incomplete context.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the body must contain a version field, adding extra context beyond the schema's description of 'Voucher JSON with version field'. This clarifies the key parameter semantic.
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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing bookkeeping voucher'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'lexware_create_voucher' by specifying 'existing', making the purpose unambiguous.
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 explicitly mentions the requirement for a version field for optimistic locking, guiding the agent on how to use the tool correctly. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'lexware_create_voucher' or specify when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.