update_additional_income

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

Annotations only signal a write operation that is not destructive. The description adds the important behavioral detail that unspecified fields remain unchanged, which is not derivable from the annotations or schema alone. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or response shape, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Two short, dense sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the partial-update behavior is stated immediately after, so the most important information appears first.

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?

With one required id, six documented optional fields, no nested objects, and annotations present, the description plus schema gives an agent enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. Minor omissions such as return value or validation behavior do not block correct usage.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The global rule that only passed fields are modified adds parameter-level meaning: callers may send a subset of the optional fields and only those are updated. That is genuinely useful beyond the individual property 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 uses a specific verb (Update), names the resource (additional income or expense), and restricts it to existing records in Quipu. This clearly separates it from create_additional_income, delete_additional_income, and the get/list siblings. The partial-update note further clarifies the exact operation semantics.

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?

It gives clear context: use this when an existing additional income or expense needs to be changed. The statement 'Only the fields passed are modified' is a strong usage rule that prevents agents from sending full-object payloads. It does not explicitly name alternatives like create or delete, but 'existing' implies the boundary.

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