Update Change Event Production Quantity

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

The description complements annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by stating that only supplied fields are changed and that the modified object is returned on success. No 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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main action. It includes necessary details like partial update and return behavior, but could be slightly more concise by omitting the endpoint line which is redundant with the tool's structure.

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 no output schema and 8 parameters, the description covers purpose, partial update semantics, required params, and return behavior. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but annotations and sibling naming help fill 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists required parameters and includes endpoint structure, but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides 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 verb (Updates) and resource (Change Event Production Quantity). It specifies partial update semantics ('only the supplied fields are changed') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (create, list, delete) through naming and context.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to update an existing Change Events' and notes partial update behavior. It does not explicitly contrast with create or delete tools, but context is clear enough for a well-tuned agent.

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