freeagent_update_estimate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not explain what may be overwritten, whether updates are partial or full replacement, whether status constraints apply, or what destructiveHint means in practice. For a mutation tool marked destructive, this leaves important operational behavior undisclosed.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is concise and easy to parse, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in guidance rather than being a structural flaw.

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 an update tool with five parameters and destructiveHint=true, the description is not complete enough. It omits whether omitted fields are preserved, whether only draft estimates are editable, what happens to existing values, and any status or permission constraints. The presence of annotations helps slightly but does not compensate for these missing details.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters including estimate_id, comments, dated_on, reference, and payment_terms_in_days. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline is 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb+resource pair: 'Update an existing estimate.' It distinguishes the operation from create, delete, get, list, and status-transition siblings by virtue of 'update.' However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or clarify the update scope, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives. It does not say whether this is the right tool for changing status versus using mark_estimate_as_sent/approved, nor whether it only applies to draft estimates. Usage is only inferred from 'update an existing estimate.'

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