Sync Prime Contract Line Items

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

Annotations already indicate it's not read-only or destructive. Description adds that 'only the supplied fields are changed' and 'returns the modified object on success', clarifying partial update behavior and response. Does not contradict annotations.

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?

Three sentences efficiently convey purpose, update behavior, and endpoint. Front-loaded with key verb and resource. Slight redundancy in listing required parameters, but overall concise and well-structured.

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 and the operation's complexity (sync/update), the description covers basic behavior and response but does not explain what 'sync' implies (e.g., upsert vs only update), nor provides details on 'updates' array format. Moderately complete but with gaps.

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 parameter descriptions. Description echoes required params but adds no additional meaning beyond schema; does not explain structure of 'updates' array (e.g., expected fields per line item). Baseline 3 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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as updating prime contract line items using verb 'Sync'/'Update' and resource 'Prime Contract Line Items'. The purpose is specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from other sync tools for different entities (e.g., sync_budget_line_items), though the resource name is distinct.

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?

States 'Use this to update an existing Prime Contracts' providing usage context. It lists required parameters but offers no guidance on when NOT to use this tool or alternatives like create resource functions. Implied usage but lacks explicit exclusions.

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