Update Information Of A Budget Change

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining that 'only the supplied fields are changed' and that the modified object is returned. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, so the description reinforces partial update behavior. No contradictions.

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 three sentences, front-loading the purpose. It is concise but contains slight repetition ('Update information...' and 'Updates the specified...'). Each sentence adds value except the redundancy.

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 covers core usage (update existing, partial update, required params) but lacks details on response format (no output schema), error scenarios, authorizations, or rate limits. For a mutation tool, this is adequate but incomplete.

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?

The description claims 'Required parameters: project_id, id', but the input schema only requires 'project_id'. This contradiction reduces reliability. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, but the error lowers the score. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Update') and resource ('Budget Change'), and specifies that it updates existing records. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_a_budget_change' or 'delete_a_budget_change', which limits 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 states when to use the tool ('to update an existing Budget records') and lists required parameters. But it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools, such as bulk update or other budget modification endpoints.

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