Update Purchase Order Contract Detail Line Item

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

The description adds that "only the supplied fields are changed" (partial update) and "returns the modified object on success", which provides behavioral detail beyond the annotations. However, it does not discuss error conditions, authorization requirements, or potential side effects. Given the annotations already indicate mutation, the description offers moderate additional 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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage note, required parameters, and API reference. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 the basic update operation and return, but given the absence of an output schema, it does not describe the shape of the returned object. It also lacks explanation of the contract_detail_line_item object structure or constraints. For a tool with required nested parameters, this is a gap. However, the presence of sibling tools with similar patterns mitigates the need for exhaustive detail.

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 lists the required parameters, but the input schema already defines them with descriptions. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant semantic information about the contract_detail_line_item object or parameter usage beyond recapitulation.

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 a Detail Line Item" and the resource "Purchase Order Contract". It also provides the verb "update" and distinguishes from siblings like create, show, list, delete. The inclusion of the API endpoint further clarifies the specific operation.

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 Commitments" which provides context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools (e.g., create for new items). The context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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