timeiq_lineitem_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states 'Update', which implies modification, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is idempotent, what happens if the invoice is already finalized, error handling, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, front-loading the key information. It is not verbose, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. Every word earns its place, but it could include more context without becoming wordy.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description should provide more context (e.g., what fields can be updated, how dry_run works). It only covers the general purpose, leaving the agent with significant gaps to infer behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with no additional structured information.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no specific meaning to parameters: it does not explain that 'id' is the line item ID, that 'changeset' is an object of fields to modify, or what 'dry_run' does. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 resource 'a single line item details row on an invoice'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like timeiq_lineitem_add and timeiq_lineitem_delete. However, it does not specify what 'details' refers to or which fields can be updated, slightly reducing specificity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites or conditions (e.g., invoice must be editable). While the tool name implies it updates a line item, there is no contextual help for an AI agent to decide between this and other updates like timeiq_invoice_update.

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