Update Rounding Configuration

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc. The description adds that it returns the modified object on success and provides the API endpoint, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions or rate limits. It adds moderate context beyond annotations.

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 moderately concise but includes redundant references to 'Field Productivity records' and an API detail that could be separated. The first sentence is clear, but the overall structure could be tighter.

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 absence of an output schema, the description states it returns the modified object, which is sufficient. It covers the update operation, required parameter, and partial update behavior. Missing any note about validation or error conditions, but overall adequate.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description only reiterates the required company_id without adding additional meaning or contextual use instructions beyond the schema.

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 'Update rounding configuration' and mentions it updates existing Field Productivity records. However, there is minor confusion as it references 'Field Productivity records' while the tool is specifically about rounding configuration, and the sibling tools confirm the focus. The verb 'update' is specific and the resource is identifiable.

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 implies usage for updating existing records with partial updates ('only the supplied fields are changed'). It mentions the required parameter company_id but does not explicitly differentiate from create, delete, or show rounding configuration tools. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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