update_budget_line

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that computed fields like 'auto_etc' and 'effective_etc' are always derived by Odoo and attempts to write them will be ignored or rejected, plus explains the correct way to move the forecast via 'etc_mode' and 'manual_etc'. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with the action, lists the supported fields, and then provides a crucial warning with a clear alternative. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and a free-form parameters object, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the full range of updatable fields, explicitly warns against computed fields, and gives the correct pattern for adjusting the forecast. No critical gaps remain.

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?

The input schema only defines 'line_id' and a free-form 'values' object (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by enumerating the allowed keys within 'values' and explaining the semantics of 'etc_mode' and 'manual_etc', which is essential for correct use.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update any field(s) on a BOQ line' and lists the specific fields it can modify. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generic 'odoo_write' by focusing on BOQ lines specifically.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool, including which fields are safe to write and a strong 'never write' instruction for computed fields. It doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools, but the behavioral exclusions (e.g., 'Never write auto_etc...') serve as important when-not guidance.

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