Update A Bid From A Bid Package

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

The description explains that the tool performs a partial update (PATCH) and returns the modified object, adding context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. The annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds moderate value.

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 with five sentences covering the action, partial update behavior, return value, required parameters, and API metadata. It is front-loaded with the key information. Minor redundancy (e.g., repeating 'Update a Bid from a Bid Package') could be tightened, but overall it is efficient 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 tool's complexity (15 parameters, no output schema, few annotations), the description covers the basic update operation and required parameters but lacks detail on non-trivial fields like bid_items or bid_status. It does not explain expected input formats or relationships, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand usage.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 15 parameters. The description merely reiterates the required parameters without adding new semantic meaning or usage context. Since the schema already documents parameters adequately, the description adds no extra value, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 title and first sentence clearly state the action (update a bid) and the resource (Bid Management records within a bid package). It specifies the operation and the context, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like update_a_bid_within_a_company, which also updates a bid but in a different context.

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 lists required parameters and mentions that only supplied fields are changed, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_a_bid_within_a_company). It does not explain when not to use it or suggest alternatives, leaving the agent without sufficient context for selection.

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