update_taxtable

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

Even though annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, the description adds critical specificity: replacement affects only future entries, existing posted invoices retain stored splits, and force is mandatory when the table is referenced. This is exactly the behavioral nuance an agent needs before invoking a destructive update.

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 well-structured: a short outcome statement, a diff-style response note, a clearly highlighted destructive warning, and a compact Args block. Every sentence earns its place, and the most safety-critical information 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?

For a mutating tool with destructive semantics, the description covers the side-effect model, the force requirement, response shape, and all parameter semantics. Since an output schema is also present, nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter documentation. It accurately explains name (current name), new_name (optional), entries (optional, same validation as create_taxtable), and force (required under a specific condition), leaving no parameter ambiguous.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Update a sales-tax table's name and/or entries') and is immediately distinguishable from siblings like create_taxtable, list_taxtables, and delete_taxtable. The scope is precise 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 gives clear operational context: it updates an existing table's name/entries, and it spells out the important precondition that force=True is required when refcount > 0 and entries are given. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the conditional guidance effectively tells the agent when this mutation is appropriate.

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