update_purchase

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'Update a purchase' without disclosing key behavioral traits like whether the update is partial or full replacement, what happens if the purchase does not exist, or any authentication requirements. This is insufficient.

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 extremely short (one sentence) but fails to convey essential information. It does not earn its place as it only restates the tool name. A concise description should be front-loaded with key details, but here it is under-specified.

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 complexity of a nested required parameter ('purchase') with no schema description, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the return value, error conditions, or how to structure the update body, making it nearly unusable for an agent.

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 schema covers 50% of parameters with descriptions (only 'company' has a description). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema; it does not explain the structure or required fields of the 'purchase' object inside 'params'. The agent is left guessing.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'a purchase in QuickBooks Online', which is specific and tells the agent what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_purchase_order' or 'update_bill', but the resource name is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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 when to create a purchase instead. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for appropriate usage.

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