Sync Cost Codes

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it 'creates or updates' and 'only the supplied fields are changed', which is useful for understanding its mutation behavior. However, it does not disclose idempotency, error handling, or performance implications beyond what annotations provide. The description adds moderate value over the baseline.

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 moderately concise at three sentences plus a link and API details. However, it includes redundant phrasing ('This endpoint creates or updates...' followed by 'Updates the specified...'). Key information is not front-loaded; the required parameters are mentioned late. The description could be more streamlined.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and is a batch mutation, the description covers the basic purpose and required parameters. It mentions the return value ('returns the modified object') but not the response structure. It lacks details on error conditions, limits, or validation. While not incomplete, it leaves gaps for an agent to make fully informed decisions.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description only reiterates the required parameters (project_id, updates) but does not add new semantic meaning, such as the expected format of the 'updates' array or the role of the optional 'sub_job_id'. Given the high schema coverage, the description's contribution is minimal, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 'creates or updates a batch of Cost Codes', specifying the verb and resource. It also mentions the required parameters and the API endpoint. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this batch operation from single cost code CRUD counterparts (create_cost_code, update_cost_code), leaving slight ambiguity about when to use sync vs individual operations.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this to update an existing Work Breakdown Structure records (only the supplied fields are changed).' It also lists required parameters. However, it does not mention when not to use it, such as for single updates or deletes, nor does it reference alternative tools like create_cost_code or update_cost_code. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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