Update A Manual Forecast Line Item

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by stating that only supplied fields are changed (partial update) and that the modified object is returned. It does not explicitly mention side effects implied by openWorldHint=true, but the annotations already cover some behavioral traits. Overall, it provides useful behavioral context without contradiction.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence contributes unique information: what it does, how it works (partial update), return value, required params, and API context. No redundancies.

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 complexity of 9 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return (modified object) and required params. However, it does not clarify the mutual exclusivity of budget_line_item_id and wbs_code_id, nor describe the structure of the returned object, leaving some gaps.

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 description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by indicating that only supplied fields are changed, implying a partial update (PATCH semantics). This goes beyond what the schema provides, enhancing parameter semantics.

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 manual forecast line item, specifies the verb 'update' and the resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like create and delete. It also clarifies that only supplied fields are changed, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explains when to use the tool (to update an existing Budget record) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like update_budget_line_item or create_a_manual_forecast_line_item. The context is clear but exclusions are missing.

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