Modify An Existing Markup

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

The description discloses partial update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values'), the PCO editability constraint, required admin permissions, and typical error responses (401, 403, 404). This goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and clarifies real-world behavior. No contradiction found.

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 dense paragraph covering action, supported tools, permissions, constraints, update semantics, parameter passing, return value, and error handling. Every sentence conveys necessary information, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is longer than average but not verbose; the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 14 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is highly complete: it explains the purpose, usage constraints, partial update behavior, parameter nesting, id resolution, and success/error responses. The only missing detail is the full return payload structure, but that is not required given the absence of an output schema. Parameter-level semantics are covered by the schema.

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 provides detailed descriptions for all 14 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context: parameters are passed as top-level arguments (nested under 'markup' in the payload) and partial update applies to all fields. It also clarifies that id must reference an existing parent record resolved via the list tool, supplementing the schema.

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 begins with 'Modify an existing Markup with new data for specified holder', clearly identifying the action (modify), resource (Markup), and scope (existing, specified holder). It further specifies supported tools (Contract, Potential Change Order), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_a_new_markup and remove_an_existing_markup.

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 explicit usage context: admin permission required, contracts can be updated anytime, and PCOs only when SOV lines are editable. It also instructs to resolve id with the matching list tool first. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use add_a_new_markup for creation', so it narrowly misses full marks.

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