Update Prime Contract Line Item

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing a side effect: automatic budget line item creation for Non-budgeted line items. It also notes partial update behavior ('only the supplied fields are changed'). Annotations already indicate mutation, but the description provides additional behavioral context.

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 moderately concise but includes redundant information (duplicate parameter) and a mix of usage notes, API details, and required parameters. It could be more streamlined.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description should explain the response format beyond 'returns the modified object'. It does not cover error scenarios, permissions, or line_item structure, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by grouping parameters into URL path vs JSON body fields and listing required ones, but duplicates one (project_id listed twice) and does not explain the line_item object structure further.

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) and resource (Line Item from Prime Contract). The title and first sentence align, and the API endpoint provides specific identification. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_prime_contract_line_item_project, relying on the version endpoint.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states the purpose and required parameters but does not provide comparative context, such as when to use create or delete, or how this differs from other update tools.

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