Sync Change Order Requests

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is an upsert operation (creates or updates), returns the modified object on success, and details common error statuses (401, 403, 404). The annotations already indicate idempotent, non-read-only, non-destructive behavior, and the description enriches this with concrete failure semantics and partial-update behavior.

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 well-organized: purpose first, then usage guidance, return/error details, required parameters, and API reference. Each sentence provides useful information. It is slightly verbose with the API path and navigation, but this is acceptable for complex tools and aids in discoverability.

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?

The description covers the purpose, update semantics, success/error returns, and required parameters. However, it leaves a significant gap: the structure of the updates array is not described, and without an output schema, an agent has limited understanding of the batch item shape. The link to Using Sync Actions helps, but the description itself is not fully self-contained.

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 coverage is 100%, but the schema descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'the updates for this Change Orders operation' for the critical updates array). The description lists required parameters but does not explain the structure or format of the updates array, which is essential for correct invocation. It adds no deeper meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'creates or updates a batch of Change Order Requests (COR).' It clearly distinguishes this as a batch sync operation, differentiating it from sibling tools like create_change_order_request or update_change_order_request that handle single records.

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 establishes clear context: this tool is for batch create/update operations. It explains partial-update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values'), which guides effective usage. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for single-record operations, so it stops short of a complete exclusion list.

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