Update A Proposal Of The Project

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

The description transparently indicates the update behavior ('only the supplied fields are changed') and return value ('returns the modified object on success'), which complements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It also includes API endpoint details. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what is implied by the 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, consisting of three well-structured sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then explains behavior and return, and finally lists required parameters and API details. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 moderate complexity (10 parameters) and no output schema, the description explains the return value and required parameters. It does not cover error cases or validation, but the schema handles parameter details. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 value by clarifying that only supplied fields are updated, which is critical for understanding the partial update semantics. Required parameters are explicitly listed, complementing the schema. No additional per-parameter details are needed beyond the schema.

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 'Update a proposal of the project' and explicitly mentions it updates existing Estimating records. The verb 'update' is appropriate, and the resource is identified. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_a_proposal_in_the_project_company' or the v2.0 update variant, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 provides guidance that only supplied fields are changed and lists required parameters (proposal_id, company_id, project_id). However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create or v2.0), nor does it include explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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