brc_update_sales_credit_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the mutation nature ('Updates') and the confirmation requirement to prevent accidental writes. However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, side effects, or what gets updated beyond note and reference.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, explaining the confirmation workflow, and adding a warning. No extraneous information, and the critical workflow details are 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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the confirmation pattern but lacks details on what the preview contains, what fields can be updated, and the response format. It is adequate for a basic understanding but not fully self-contained.

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 60% (3 of 5 params have descriptions). The description adds value for confirmWrite by explaining its conditional usage, but for 'note' and 'reference' it only hints at 'structured safe text/ reference fields' without clarifying format or constraints. The schema descriptions for id and companyName are adequate.

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 sales credit note, using 'structured safe text/reference fields'. While it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling update tools (e.g., update_sales_entry), the action and resource are specific and 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 provides detailed guidance on the two-step confirmation workflow: first call without confirmWrite returns a preview, then retry with confirmWrite after user confirmation. It explicitly warns that 'Passing preflight is not confirmation.' However, it does not compare when to use this update tool versus create or other update tools.

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