Sync Standard Cost Codes

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

Annotations already cover read-only, destructive, and idempotent hints. The description adds value by disclosing partial-update behavior (omitted fields keep current values) and specific error handling (401 for expired token, 403 for missing permission, 404 for unresolvable ID). It also states the success return value. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 purpose-front-loaded and packed with useful information: purpose, doc link, partial-update rule, return value, error codes, required params, API area, and endpoint. While somewhat dense, every sentence earns its place and no information is redundant with the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately covers return values ('Returns the modified standard cost code on success') and error payloads. It references additional documentation for sync actions and lists required parameters. Given the tool's complexity, this is a reasonably complete picture for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning for the 'updates' parameter by explaining the partial-update model, which clarifies how to structure the batch operation. This gives the agent practical invocation guidance beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 a specific verb + resource: 'creates or updates a batch of Standard Cost Codes.' It clearly differentiates this batch sync tool from single-item siblings like create_standard_cost_code and update_standard_cost_code by emphasizing the batch nature and the 'sync' action.

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 usage context: it links to 'Using Sync Actions' documentation and explicitly tells users to 'send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or directly compare it to alternative cost code tools, though the batch vs. single-item distinction is implied.

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