Settings: update debtor

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it modifies data 'in place' and overwrites only the fields sent, with a caution to read first for partial changes. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded with the write nature and core behavior first. Minor redundancy exists ('update debtor' appears in the heading, bold line, and prose sentence), but the overwrite warning and read-first hint earn their place.

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 13 parameters, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential operational semantics: it is an update, it overwrites sent fields, it is for master data, and a read-first step is recommended. It does not discuss validation or response behavior, but the schema and annotations cover those details sufficiently.

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 schema already documents every parameter. The description adds only high-level groupings ('address, bank details or customer number') that map loosely to parameters, but does not provide deeper meaning beyond what the schema contains.

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 states a specific action ('Update a debtor account') and a concrete resource, with explicit examples of what can be changed: address, bank details, or customer number. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling update tools like creditors_update or postingaccounts_update.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: changing existing debtor master data, and explicitly recommends reading the current record with debtors_list before a partial change. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like debtors_create, but the update-focused wording makes the intended scope reasonably clear.

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