brc_update_cash_receipt

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

The description discloses the two-step confirm mechanism and what happens without confirmWrite (returns preview). However, it does not detail the preview content or any side effects, and there are no annotations to supplement. Still, the core behavioral trait is well explained.

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 with four sentences, no wasted words, and the most important information (purpose and confirmation workflow) is 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?

Given the tool's complexity (two-step confirmation) and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential workflow. It could be more complete by specifying the exact return structure, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand and execute the process.

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 adds critical context for the confirmWrite parameter and explains the purpose of payload/updates as merged fields, going beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool updates a BRC cash receipt using merged fields, which is specific and distinguishes it from create or delete sibling tools. However, it could be more explicit about when to use this versus the create tool.

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 step-by-step usage guidance: first call without confirmWrite for a preview, then retry with confirmWrite: true after explicit user confirmation. It clarifies that passing preflight is not confirmation, which is excellent advice for the agent.

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