Update Receipt

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

Annotations say readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true; the description adds the crucial piece the annotations cannot convey — that without confirm the call only returns a preview and nothing is applied. It does not disclose partial-update semantics (what happens to fields left null) or any permission requirements, which keeps it below a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the preview caveat placed last where it is most actionable. No redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 17 parameters, an output schema, and full annotations, the description covers the main risk (accidental submission) and a concrete workflow. The remaining gap is that it never says whether unspecified fields are left untouched or cleared, which matters for a 17-param partial update.

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 76% and the schema already documents the tricky parameters (confirm, submit, purpose, remove_attachment_ids). The description only references category, purpose, and the receipt file, adding workflow ordering rather than new parameter meaning, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Edit a receipt') plus the optional submit action, which separates it from create_receipt in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly naming create_receipt or get_receipt as the alternative, but the resource and operation are unambiguous.

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?

Gives a concrete usage scenario ('finish a Wint card receipt draft: set category and purpose, add the receipt file, then submit') and states the preview-only behavior without confirm, which effectively encodes the two-step call pattern. It does not state when to prefer create_receipt over this tool, so no explicit exclusion.

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