update_sales_order

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the date + voucher-number matching rule, the refusal behavior on shared voucher numbers, the risk of silently corrupting the wrong voucher, and the Auto Retain numbering limitation. It even cites confirmed live behavior, which is strong transparency for a destructive operation.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, prerequisites, collision behavior, and numbering caveat. It does not repeat field-level schema details and front-loads the core update action before caveats.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description supplies all essential operational context: how to locate the voucher, how to handle ambiguity, possible refusal, and a key limitation. The schema already covers field-level details, so nothing critical is missing.

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 description adds critical meaning beyond the schema: orderNumber and each item's dueDate remain required, voucherNumber is the locating key, matching is by date and voucher number, and voucherNumber may not actually be changeable. This materially improves the agent's ability to construct a correct invocation.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb plus resource: 'Update an existing Sales Order in TallyPrime', and enumerates exactly what gets replaced: item lines, party, order number, and narration. This clearly distinguishes it from create_sales_order and the other create/update voucher siblings.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to call get_ledger_vouchers or get_vouchers first to confirm existence and uniqueness, and tells it what to do if a collision occurs: resolve it in Tally first. It also clarifies how this tool relates to create_sales_order by referencing the same fields plus voucherNumber.

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