update_tax_setting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) and mentions a preview requirement, which adds behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap, but the preview guidance adds some value.

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 with a clear purpose statement, usage guideline, and parameter/return sections. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second gives critical guidance, and the rest document inputs/outputs. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating parameter hints earlier, but it's efficient overall.

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 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does moderately well. It covers purpose, usage, and parameters, but lacks details on return values (only states 'Updated tax setting' vaguely), error handling, or side effects. For a mutation tool in a financial context, more completeness is needed, though the preview guidance helps.

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 must compensate. It lists all 6 parameters with brief examples (e.g., 'sales' for tax_type), which adds meaning beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or default behaviors (e.g., null handling), leaving gaps. The description provides basic semantics but doesn't fully cover the parameter complexity.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'a tax setting', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_tax_settings' (read) and 'submit_tax_report' (different action), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_company_details' which might handle related settings. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated from other update tools.

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 guidance: 'Always generate a preview of the tax report @generate_finanzamt_preview before submitting it to the Finanzamt.' This specifies a prerequisite action and names the alternative tool, giving clear when-to-use context. It implies this tool is part of a workflow leading to tax submission.

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