update_canned_service_tire

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of explaining behavioral effects. It only states 'update' without detailing whether the operation is a partial update or full replacement, any side effects (e.g., recalculation of totals), idempotency, or error conditions. This leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's runtime behavior.

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 with the verb and object front-loaded. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The description is minimal and omits essential context such as what the tool returns (no output schema), whether it requires existing items to be present, or how it integrates with the parent canned service template. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is not sufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional assumptions.

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?

All 9 parameters have schema descriptions with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no extra semantic nuance beyond what the schema already provides; for instance, 'Updated quantity' is self-explanatory, but there is no additional context about units, validation constraints, or interplay between parameters (e.g., whether unitCostCents and unitPriceCents must be non-negative).

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 action ('Update') and the specific resource ('a tire line item on a canned service template'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like add_canned_service_tire and remove_canned_service_tire by the verb 'update', though it could be more explicit about what aspects of the tire item are modifiable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as adding or removing a tire line item, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. There are no annotations to supplement this lack of direction, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name and sibling list.

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