update_class

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states 'Update an existing class' without mentioning concurrency via sync_token, return value, idempotency, error handling, or required permissions. The minimal description fails to inform the agent about important side effects or constraints.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's main action. It contains no wasted words. However, it is slightly too brief given the tool's complexity, but the conciseness itself is good.

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?

Given the tool has a nested parameter object, 5 total parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the single-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain required fields (id, sync_token with concurrency role), optional fields (name, active), or the company targeting. The agent lacks essential context for correct invocation.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. The schema already describes all parameters with descriptions (id, sync_token, name, active, company). Although the context indicates 50% coverage, the description does not clarify parameter usage, formatting, or relationships. It does not hinder understanding but also does not enhance it.

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 uses a specific verb 'Update' and a clear resource 'existing class in QuickBooks Online'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_class or search_classes by indicating it modifies an existing entity. The purpose is immediately understood.

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 its alternatives (e.g., create_class for new classes, get_class for retrieval, or search_classes for listing). There are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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