lpza_upsert_draft_fee

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the upsert nature, explicitly warns that VAT is not calculated (a critical gotcha), and specifies the update keys. However, it does not describe side effects like what happens when neither update key is provided or how conflicts are resolved.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the most critical usage caveat (VAT not calculated). Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or vague content.

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 tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, key operational details, and update mechanisms. The schema fills in most parameter definitions, and the added warning about VAT calculation is essential. It lacks explicit guidance on response format or conflict behavior, but overall it is adequate for this complexity level.

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 high (92%), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the semantics of unitprice, tax, and trantotal by emphasizing they are caller-supplied, but the schema already provides similar descriptions. It adds minimal new information beyond the schema, mostly highlighting the update keys.

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 identifies the action as 'Insert or update an unbilled draft fee' via a specific endpoint, which is a distinct verb and resource. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like lpza_delete_draft_fee and lpza_list_unbilled by focusing on the upsert operation.

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 clear usage context by stating that unitprice, tax, and trantotal must be passed as supplied, and that VAT is not calculated. It also indicates update keys (matterdraftlineitem_uid or srcid), though it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, which is acceptable given the absence of a direct sibling for draft fee creation.

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