Update Purchase Order Contract Line Item

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false) indicate mutation; description adds side effect about automatic budget line item creation for non-budgeted items. Does not mention idempotency or destructive potential, but annotations already provide some base.

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?

Description includes necessary information but has redundancy (e.g., API endpoint detail may be unnecessary). Budget line item note and required params list are useful but slightly verbose.

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?

Covers main purpose, side effect, and required parameters. Lacks details on line_item object structure (though schema allows additionalProperties) and no output schema, but complexity is moderate.

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. Description lists required parameters but adds no meaning beyond schema. 'line_item' is described only as 'the Line Item object' without further detail.

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 tool updates a Purchase Order Contract Line Item and specifies it modifies existing commitments with only supplied fields. It distinguishes from create/delete siblings implicitly but does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance on when to use vs alternatives like sync or create tools. Only states 'use this to update existing Commitments,' lacking context on when not to use or alternative tools.

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