Update Requisition (Subcontractor Invoice) Whole Change Order Item

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that the tool returns the modified object on success, which is standard. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, permissions, rate limits) are disclosed beyond what annotations provide.

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 (3-4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. It includes a reference to the Procore API endpoint, which provides extra context without being overly verbose. Slightly more streamlined would be ideal.

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 tool has 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It explains the basic operation and return value but lacks guidance on how body fields interact, possible status values, or error scenarios. More context on usage of the optional fields would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only mentions required parameters (requisition_id, id) but does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as default values, constraints, or examples for body fields.

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 the specific resource (Requisition Subcontractor Invoice Whole Change Order Item). It explicitly mentions updating existing commitments and that only supplied fields are changed, which distinguishes it from other update tools.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('Use this to update an existing Commitments') but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or contrast with sibling tools (e.g., update_requisition_subcontractor_invoice_contract_item). The context of when to choose this over alternatives is missing.

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