Update Potential Change Order Line Item

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that updates are partial ('only the supplied fields are changed') and returns the modified object. It also discloses an important side effect: automatic creation of a budget line item for non-budgeted line items under certain conditions, which goes beyond annotation info.

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 plus an API reference. It is front-loaded with the action and includes a critical side effect in a note. While the note adds length, it is necessary. Could be slightly more concise, 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, but the description mentions 'returns the modified object on success'. It covers the update behavior, required parameters, and a side effect. For a mutation tool with 4 required params, it provides sufficient context, though it could clarify that it is a PATCH endpoint supporting partial updates.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists the required parameters but does not add new meaning beyond the schema descriptions. The note about auto-creation is not parameter-specific but provides context. Overall, no significant enhancement over 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 Potential Change Order Line Item', using a specific verb and resource. This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_potential_change_order_line_item and delete_potential_change_order_line_item.

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 Change Orders' but is vague and uses the wrong entity name ('Change Orders' instead of 'Potential Change Order Line Items'). It provides no exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent without clear guidance on when to choose this tool over create or delete.

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