Add or update a VAT tax code for a single tax enumeration point, setting its rate, form line, and validity period for Swiss VAT reporting.
Add or edit a tax code at the single tax enumeration point.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | ||
| kind | Yes | ||
| label | No | ||
| rateBp | Yes | ||
| formLine | Yes | ||
| validFrom | No | ||
| workspaceId | Yes | ||
| idempotencyKey | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Add or edit' which implies mutation, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency behavior (despite an idempotencyKey parameter), or any constraints. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient, but it lacks structure and fails to front-load any additional details. It is appropriately short but overly minimal.
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?
With 8 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely inadequate. It does not mention required fields, parameter meaning, or expected behavior, making it impossible to call correctly without external knowledge.
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 0%, and the description provides no parameter explanations. It does not explain what 'code', 'kind', 'rateBp', 'formLine', or other fields mean, leaving the agent without necessary semantics.
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 the verb 'Add or edit' (upsert) and the resource 'tax code', plus the location 'single tax enumeration point', which distinguishes it from siblings like vat_code_deactivate and vat_code_reactivate that deal with status changes.
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 phrase 'at the single tax enumeration point' provides some context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related VAT tools (vat_codes, vat_code_deactivate, vat_code_reactivate). It is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.