Update Project Bid Type

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds value by specifying that only supplied fields are changed (partial update via PATCH) and that the modified object is returned. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide, though more detail about potential side effects could be given.

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 concise with three sentences that efficiently cover purpose, usage, required parameters, and API details. No redundant information or fluff.

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?

For a simple update tool, the description adequately covers the behavior (partial update), return value, required parameters, and API endpoint. Without an output schema, the return behavior is explained. The annotations cover safety. Overall complete for this complexity level.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description only reiterates that company_id and id are required, adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 ('Update') and resource ('Project Bid Type'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, list, and show. The mention of 'Company Settings' might be slightly confusing, but it's clear it refers to updating a specific bid type.

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 explains that the tool is for updating an existing bid type and lists required parameters (company_id, id). It implies the use case but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like create_project_bid_type. However, it provides sufficient context for proper usage.

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