receipts_update

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds important operational context beyond annotations: status eligibility and the fact that all line items are replaced, which is critical for an agent to avoid unintended data loss.

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-loaded with the action and status constraint, followed by the replacement behavior. Every sentence carries necessary operational meaning with no filler.

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 rich annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete for a mutation tool. It covers status restrictions and line replacement, though it could mention that unspecified fields remain unchanged or clarify response behavior, but no output schema exists.

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 all 24 parameters are documented in the schema. The description reinforces line replacement semantics but does not add new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Update an existing receipt') and clarifies the operation applies only to receipts in draft or issued status. It is clearly distinct from create/issue siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 gives a clear condition for use: receipts in draft or issued status can be updated. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or which sibling to use instead, but the status constraint provides meaningful usage context.

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