Sync Work Order Contract Line Items

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that a budget line item will be auto-created for non-budgeted items (a side effect). However, it ambiguously refers to 'updates the specified Commitments' rather than line items, and lacks details on return structure, rate limits, or required permissions.

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 structured with a note, usage instruction, required parameters, and API reference. It is mostly concise but includes some redundancy (e.g., title repeated) and could be slightly tighter.

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 sync nature and side effects, the description lacks crucial information: whether it supports both create and update or only update (despite 'sync' in name), and no output schema or description of the modified object. Missing details limit an agent's ability to 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining partial update behavior ('only the supplied fields are changed') and enumerates required parameters, though this partly overlaps 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 the tool syncs work order contract line items, distinguishing it from siblings like sync_work_order_contracts or sync_purchase_order_contract_line_items. It specifies the action (update existing Commitments), the resource (line items), and includes API endpoint details.

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 indicates the tool is for updating existing Commitments with partial updates, but omits when not to use it or alternatives among many sibling sync tools. No explicit exclusion or comparison to other sync methods is provided.

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