Update A Line Item Group Of The Proposal

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

The description discloses the partial update behavior ('only the supplied fields are changed') and returns the modified object, adding value beyond annotations. However, it omits details on side effects, error handling, or authorization requirements. Annotations already indicate it is a write operation but not destructive or idempotent, which is consistent.

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 fairly concise with three sentences, but it repeats 'Bid Board records' and includes the full endpoint URL, which adds length without improving clarity. The required parameters list is redundant with the schema. Overall, it achieves basic readability but could be more streamlined.

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 mentions the return of the modified object, partially compensating for the lack of an output schema. It provides the API version, endpoint, and required parameters. However, it does not describe the structure of the response, error scenarios, or details about the nested pricing_override object, leaving some gaps for a tool with eight 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It lists required parameters and mentions the endpoint path, but does not elaborate on optional fields like pricing_override or their constraints. The behavior of 'only the supplied fields are changed' is generic and does not clarify parameter interactions.

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 line item group of a proposal, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create or delete by emphasizing 'update an existing' records. However, the phrase 'Bid Board records' is slightly ambiguous as the tool targets line item groups specifically.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative operations (e.g., create, delete, or retrieve line item groups). It does not provide conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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