update_job_work_in_order

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the date + voucher number matching semantics, the refusal-on-collision safety mechanism, and a live-confirmed failure mode ('Tally's Alter lookup ignores voucher type and can silently corrupt the wrong one'). This is exactly the kind of hard-won behavioral context a destructiveHint annotation cannot convey.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: action and scope, field parity with the sibling, matching plus prerequisite lookup, and failure mode plus recovery. The most important fact is front-loaded, and the longest sentence carries a genuinely critical caveat rather than filler.

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 destructive update with six parameters and a nested items/components structure, the description covers replacement scope, identity matching, prerequisite verification, collision refusal, and recovery. With no output schema, the only gap is that the success/return behavior is never described.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description still adds value by identifying date + voucherNumber as the identity key used for matching — a semantic the schema does not state — and by cross-referencing the create variant's field set for agents that already know it.

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 and resource ('Update an existing Job Work In Order in TallyPrime') and precisely scopes what gets replaced: item lines, component lists, party, order number, and narration. The field-parity note ('Same fields as create_job_work_in_order, plus voucherNumber') explicitly differentiates it from the create sibling.

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 explicit routing guidance: run get_ledger_vouchers or get_vouchers first to confirm the voucher exists and is unique, and resolve collisions in Tally before retrying. The create-vs-update distinction is strongly implied (the word 'existing' plus the reference to create_job_work_in_order) but never stated as an explicit exclusion.

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