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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the optimistic-concurrency requirement (current SyncToken) and that the response carries the new SyncToken, which an agent needs to chain further writes.

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 action and its prerequisites, and it closes on the return value. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description still names what comes back (the saved record plus its new SyncToken). Combined with the very rich nested entity schema, an agent has enough to invoke correctly; only the destructive sparse-update semantics live solely in the schema.

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 the entity object already documents sparse updates, the Line-replacement rule, the SSN-exclusion rule, and the Active:false retirement pattern. The description only restates the Id/SyncToken requirement the schema already carries, adding no new parameter meaning.

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 ("Update an existing term in QuickBooks Online") and, combined with the sibling naming (create_term, get_term, search_terms), an agent can immediately place it. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

Specifies the prerequisite clearly: Id and the current SyncToken "as the last search or write returned it," which implies the caller must read before writing. No explicit when-not or alternative (e.g. use search_terms to find the Id, or Active:false to retire) is offered in the description.

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