Update An Estimate Line Item Of The Proposal

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds that only supplied fields are changed and that the modified object is returned. It does not disclose potential side effects or permissions needed, which would be valuable given openWorldHint=true.

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 and includes useful context like endpoint and API version. However, the API endpoint and version info could be trimmed for brevity, and the first sentence largely repeats the title.

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 return of the modified object but lacks details on error handling, format of the response, or behavior when fields are omitted. Given the tool has 9 parameters with nested objects and no output schema, a bit more context 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 baseline is 3. The description lists required parameters but does not add nuance beyond what schema's descriptions already provide for each parameter.

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 action: 'Update an estimate line item of the proposal.' It identifies the resource (Bid Board records) and includes required parameters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool for project-level update, relying on the tool name for that distinction.

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 says 'Use this to update an existing Bid Board records' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like creation, deletion, or the project-level sibling. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned.

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