Update A Bid Within A Company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it performs a partial update and returns the modified object, which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction with 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?

The description consists of two clear sentences plus metadata lines (API endpoint, required params). It is appropriately sized without fluff, though could be more 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 13 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers overall behavior and return value. It does not explain response structure (missing output schema) but is adequate for a mutation tool with good schema coverage.

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 each parameter described. The description adds that id and company_id are required and that only supplied fields are changed, but does not elaborate further on parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 it updates an existing Bid within a Company, specifying that only supplied fields are changed and returns the modified object. The name and context distinguish it from 'update_a_bid_from_a_bid_package', though no explicit contrast is provided.

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 says 'Use this to update an existing Bid Management records', which implies usage but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives like the bid package counterpart. Guidelines are implied rather than explicit.

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