Sync Potential Change Orders

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: partial-update behavior (only fields sent are changed), return value ('Returns the modified potential change order on success'), and detailed failure modes including HTTP status codes for common errors (401 expired token, 403 missing permission, 404 unresolved id). These behaviors are not evident from annotations or schema, making the tool's runtime behavior transparent.

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 concise yet information-dense. It opens with the core purpose, then flows naturally: reference to sync actions, partial-update semantics, return value, failure modes, required parameters, and API context. Every sentence contributes value with no filler or repetition, and technical details such as endpoint path and API module are included without bloating the text.

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's moderate complexity (batch sync, partial updates, error handling) and absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, how updates behave, what is returned, common error scenarios, required parameters, and the exact endpoint. This enables an agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately without missing critical 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters, but the 'updates' parameter description is vague ('JSON request body field — the updates for this Change Orders operation'). The tool description adds critical meaning: the updates parameter is a batch, and only provided fields are changed (partial updates). This clarifies what the caller should send. It does not provide an example structure for the updates array, which would push it to a 5, but it meaningfully enriches 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 clearly states 'creates or updates a batch of Potential Change Orders (PCO)', identifying the specific verb (creates or updates), resource (Potential Change Orders), and scope (batch). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_potential_change_order, update_potential_change_order, and list_potential_change_orders. The sync aspect is also made explicit.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for batch create/update sync operations with partial-update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values'). It references 'Using Sync Actions' for further guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions but offers sufficient context.

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