update_physical_stock

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

The description discloses that the tool replaces existing line items (destructive behavior) and explicitly mentions it refuses on collision scenarios. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) are consistent with the described behavior, and the description adds clarity by explaining the collision risk from Tally's Alter lookup behavior.

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 concise, containing two sentences that deliver the core purpose, preconditions, and failure mode without extraneous detail. It is well-structured, front-loading the main action and then addressing prerequisites and exceptions efficiently.

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?

The description covers essential context: the update operation, replacement semantics, preconfirmation steps, and collision handling. However, it does not mention what the tool returns on success or failure beyond the refusal case, which might be expected for a write operation. This minor gap prevents a perfect score, but given the tool's nature, it is still sufficiently complete for an agent to use effectively.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, and the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, such as the default for batchName ('Primary Batch') and the auto-fill behavior for godown when only one exists. This enriches understanding of parameter usage and edge cases.

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 it updates an existing Physical Stock voucher in TallyPrime, specifying the action of replacing line items and narration. It uses the verb 'Update' and distinguishes it from create_physical_stock and other update tools in the sibling list. The resource and scope are explicit, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: it instructs to first confirm existence and uniqueness via get_ledger_vouchers or get_vouchers. It also states the refusal condition when another voucher type shares the same number, making the usage conditions clear and actionable.

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