cash_register_movements_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals partial-update semantics (omitted fields keep current value), the currency immutability constraint, and the auto-direction re-application behavior when kind changes. These are genuinely valuable behavioral insights beyond the raw schema. It doesn't mention whether operation is destructive or requires permissions, but the disclosed behaviors are meaningful.

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?

Three dense sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence carries meaningful behavioral information (field optionality, currency constraint, direction re-application). No wasted words.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key edge cases: partial updates, immutability of currency, and kind/direction interaction. It doesn't explain the return value or what happens to movementDate/amount validation, but for a partial-update tool this is reasonably complete given the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 63%, meaning some parameters lack descriptions in the schema. The description compensates with partial-update semantics and the direction/kind interaction rule. It doesn't enumerate every parameter, but the schema already provides descriptions for uuid, companyId, description, documentNumber, and movementDate. The description adds value by explaining omitted-field behavior and the kind/direction coupling.

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 this updates a manual cash movement with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('manual cash movement'). It differentiates from siblings via 'manual' (distinguishing from create/list/delete/balance/ledger tools in the same domain). It doesn't fully distinguish from cash_register_movements_create, but the purpose is clear.

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 clear parameter behavior guidance ('All fields optional; omitted fields keep their current value') and important constraints ('Currency cannot be changed', 'Changing kind between deposit/withdrawal re-applies auto-direction'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. create/delete, though the domain siblings make this reasonably inferable.

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