Update Requisition (Subcontractor Invoice)

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

It discloses partial update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values'), permission constraints by status and recency, success return of the modified requisition, and common HTTP error codes (401/403/404). This goes well beyond the annotation flags and gives the agent concrete behavioral expectations.

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?

Although dense, every sentence earns its place: purpose, permission rules, partial update, id resolution, return, errors, required parameters, and endpoint. The single-paragraph flow is efficient and front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return value ('Returns the modified requisition on success'), likely error payloads, permission restrictions, and required parameters. It also includes the API version and endpoint, giving a complete picture for safe invocation.

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 covers all parameters at 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that id must resolve to an existing parent record, reminding of required id/project_id/commitment_id, and clarifying that requisition items are optional with partial update behavior. This elevates it above the schema baseline.

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 opens with 'Update a specified Requisition (Subcontractor Invoice)', clearly stating the verb and resource. It also includes the API endpoint and distinguishes it from sibling update tools (e.g., contract item updates) by focusing on the main requisition object.

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 gives explicit permission conditions (non-admin vs admin), instructs the agent to resolve the id with the matching list tool first, and notes that requisition items are optional. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context and permission rules make when-to-use clear.

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