Update A Time And Material Notification

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate mutation but the description adds little beyond stating it updates and returns the modified object. It does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or partial update behavior beyond 'only supplied fields are changed'.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes key specifics (partial update, return value, required param, API info). Slightly verbose with API reference but overall well-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?

No output schema exists, and the description only says 'returns the modified object on success'. While sufficient, it omits error conditions, prerequisites, or clarification on nested/array parameters. Given 12 parameters, more detail would improve completeness.

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%, so the schema itself already describes all 12 parameters. The description adds the context that only supplied fields change but does not elaborate on any parameter's meaning 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 that the tool updates a Time And Material Notification for a specified project, using the verb 'update' and resource 'Time And Material Notification'. It distinguishes from create/delete siblings, though the interchangeable use of 'Field Productivity records' may cause slight confusion.

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 implies use for updating existing records but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over other related tools (create, delete, list). No when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned.

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