update_receipt_note

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description adds that it replaces item lines, party, and narration, which is consistent with destructiveHint. However, it does not describe error behavior, return values, or side effects beyond replacement. The reference to 'collision caveats' hints at potential conflicts but does not elaborate, leaving behavioral details partially unspecified.

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 (two sentences), front-loaded with the primary action, and efficiently references sibling tools for caveats. It avoids redundancy and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 is incomplete in that it relies on the sibling tool update_delivery_note for matching/collision caveats without summarizing them. It also lacks any mention of output or return format (there is no output schema), and does not explain failure conditions related to non-existent voucher numbers or other edge cases. While the core purpose is clear, the broader context is incomplete.

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 itself provides detailed descriptions for all parameters, including nested items and specific field explanations (e.g., godown auto-fill behavior). The tool description adds little beyond the schema, merely stating 'Same fields as create_receipt_note' and 'replacing item lines, party, and narration', which does not significantly enhance understanding of parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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 (update), the resource (Receipt Note in TallyPrime), and the scope (replacing item lines, party, and narration). It also distinguishes itself from create_receipt_note by explicitly adding voucherNumber, 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 references 'Same matching/collision caveats as update_delivery_note' which provides some guidance by analogy, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other update tools or when it should not be used. The tool name alone implies the document type, but the description lacks explicit usage conditions or alternatives.

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