upload_receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and non-idempotency, but the description adds meaningful caveats beyond them: the write-flag requirement and the repeated warning that the mutation is not live-tested/validated. Those risk disclosures are genuinely useful, though it doesn't say what the operation returns or what side effects beyond 'mutating' occur.

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?

Telegraphic and front-loaded with the endpoint, mutation flag, and payload requirement in order of importance. However, 'Not live-validated' and 'Mutation behavior has not been live-tested' are redundant and could be a single caveat.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the write-flag and payload-schema references are present. Yet with 0% parameter coverage, the undefined query and confirm_destructive parameters leave real gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for four params. It addresses payload (via get_schema('ReceiptRequestProto')) and clarifies 'No path parameters', but leaves query and confirm_destructive entirely unexplained, so compensation is only partial.

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 definition gives a verb and resource ('upload_receipt: POST /v1/receipt') but a receipt of what, for which workflow, is never explained. Beyond the endpoint path and the ReceiptRequestProto reference, it largely restates the tool name rather than clarifying intent.

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 offers a prerequisite ('requires FLIGHTY_ALLOW_WRITES=true') but no guidance on when to use this versus other mutation tools or what a valid call scenario looks like. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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