Sync Purchase Order Headers

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the request limit (1000 entities, 413 error), partial-update behavior, default values for identifiers, and error handling with specific HTTP statuses. It also states the return value ('Returns the modified purchase order header on success'). These details are not present in the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) and are highly valuable for agent decision-making.

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 information-dense but front-loads the core purpose and then covers limits, partial updates, defaults, return value, errors, and API context in a single paragraph. It is longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence adds meaningful operational detail, and the structure is acceptable.

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 tool lacks an output schema, so the description's note on the return value is necessary and provided. However, the description does not fully compensate for the missing body specification, leaving the agent without a clear way to invoke the sync operation with the entities to create/update. This is a notable completeness gap despite the otherwise rich detail.

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 schema defines only company_id and project_id with basic 'URL path parameter' descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the default-to-config behavior and states these are required parameters, which is useful. However, the description does not clarify how the actual purchase order headers (with ids or origin_ids) are passed, and the schema's additionalProperties:false would appear to forbid a body containing them, creating ambiguity that the description fails to resolve.

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 opens with 'Creates or updates Purchase Order headers identified using either ids or origin_ids,' clearly stating a sync/upsert action on a specific resource. It further specifies the API endpoint and HTTP method (PATCH), distinguishing it from sibling tools like sync_purchase_order_contracts. The resource name and action are unambiguous.

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 implies its use for bulk synchronization through the mention of a 1000-entity limit and partial-update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but it provides concrete context for its intended scenario. The defaulting of company_id/project_id adds operational guidance.

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