accelo_update_object_budget_material

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this mutates an existing line item, that only material_id is required (i.e. a partial update), and the accepted 'yes'/'no' value format for billable, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about permissions, error behavior when the material does not exist, or how omitted fields are treated.

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?

Front-loaded one-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args block; every line earns its place. Minor redundancy in restating 'material' in the arguments, but no padding or filler.

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 no output schema, the description covers the parameters adequately, but omits behavioral essentials: permissions/authentication requirements, failure modes, and confirmation of whether this is a partial or full replacement update. Adequate but with recognized gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: all six parameters are named with meaning, material_id is flagged required, billable's enum-like accepted values are given, and 'fields' is explained as the set of fields returned on the updated material. Only slightly thin on quantity/unit_cost units and validation constraints.

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 states a specific verb (update) and a specific resource (an existing material line item on an object budget), and the word 'existing' plus 'update' cleanly separates it from siblings like accelo_create_object_budget_material and accelo_list_object_budget_materials. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over create_object_budget_material or the service-line equivalents, and no prerequisites (e.g. the material must already exist, required permissions) are stated. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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