cash_register_movements_update

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

Annotations already establish idempotency, non-destructiveness, and non-read-only behavior, while the description adds useful mutation semantics: omitted fields preserve current values, currency is immutable, and changing kind re-applies auto-direction. It still omits permissions, validation behavior, and response details.

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 short sentences front-load the purpose, then state the key update constraints with no wasted text.

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 a modest schema and annotations covering safety traits, the description provides the essential behavioral constraints. It could still mention prerequisites, error behavior, or what the update returns.

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%, and the description adds meaningful semantics for partial updates and the kind/direction interaction. However, "All fields optional" conflicts with the schema's required uuid, and it does not explain several individual parameters such as amount or direction.

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 and resource: "Update a manual cash movement." It clearly identifies the operation and the manual-movement subtype, though it does not explicitly route the agent away from create/delete/list siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by "Update a manual cash movement" and by the note that omitted fields keep their current value, which suggests partial updates. However, it does not state when to use this instead of creating a new movement, deleting one, or listing movements.

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