accounting_export_settings_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that settings are merged (not replaced) with existing config, which is a critical behavioral trait. It also discloses the company scope (active company) and the companyId override capability. The description is reasonably transparent for a config-update operation, though it doesn't state whether this requires special permissions or what happens on invalid config.

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 sentences, tightly written with no filler. The key facts (update, merge, scope, targets) are front-loaded. Could arguably be one sentence, but the structure is efficient and each clause adds value.

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 config-update tool with 2 params (nested settings object), full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: the update action, merge semantics, company scope, and supported target systems. A more complete description might mention permission requirements or error behavior, but for this tool's complexity the description is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (settings, companyId) are documented in the schema. The description adds context by explaining the merge behavior and the three target systems, which enriches the 'settings' parameter's meaning. The companyId override is also echoed in the description. This is adequate but not extensive beyond the schema.

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 it updates accounting export configuration with a specific verb (update) and resource (accounting export settings). It mentions the merge behavior and the specific systems (Saga, Winmentor, Ciel). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool accounting_export_settings_get, though the update-vs-get distinction is obvious enough.

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 implies when to use it (when updating accounting export config) and mentions the merge semantics (settings merged with existing config), which is useful guidance. However, there are no explicit when/when-not conditions or alternatives named, though the sibling accounting_export_settings_get provides an implicit contrast.

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