Update A Budgeted Production Quantity

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying partial update behavior ('only the supplied fields are changed') and that it returns the modified object. 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 is concise at three sentences, front-loading purpose, then behavior and required parameters. It is well-structured without unnecessary fluff.

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 description covers essential behavior (partial update, return of modified object) and provides the endpoint path. However, it lacks error handling details and does not address the contradiction regarding required parameters.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description wrongly states that both project_id and id are required, while the schema only lists id as required. This mismatch undermines clarity and could mislead the agent.

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 updates a Budgeted Production Quantity for a specified project, differentiating it from create or delete siblings. The verb 'update' and specific resource are explicit.

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 notes it is for updating existing records and that only supplied fields are changed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., vs. creating or bulk updates). No direct comparison to similar tools.

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