receipts_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Replaces all line items with the provided array,' which is a key destructive/replacement behavior worth knowing. However, it doesn't disclose whether status transitions, validation, or side effects (e.g., recalculating totals) occur, nor what the response contains.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The key constraints (status limitations and line-item replacement) are front-loaded. Could arguably mention the note that line-item replacement also affects line-item UUIDs, but overall efficient.

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 24-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonable but light. It captures the two essential behaviors (status gate and line replacement) but does not touch on whether existing line-item UUIDs must match, potential validation errors, or return semantics. Given the tool's complexity, more guidance would improve completeness.

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 parameters are well documented by the schema itself. The description adds the critical semantics that the 'lines' array replaces all existing line items and that draft/issued status is required — valuable context the schema alone doesn't convey. A baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles most param documentation.

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 the tool updates an existing receipt and clearly distinguishes the line-item replacement behavior. It doesn't strongly differentiate from sibling tools like receipts_create or receipts_issue, but the verb+resource action is clear and specific.

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 notes that receipts in draft or issued status can be updated, implying status constraints. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this vs. tools like receipts_issue, receipts_cancel, or receipts_convert_to_invoice, nor any exclusions for already-finalized receipts.

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