Update Standard Cost Code

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

The description discloses that only supplied fields are changed (partial update) and that it returns the modified object on success. Annotations are present but the description adds value by clarifying the partial update behavior and listing required parameters. No contradiction with 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 concise at four sentences, with front-loaded purpose. It avoids fluff but is slightly repetitive ('Update Standard Cost Code', 'use this to update an existing...'). Still efficient.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return value. It explains partial update behavior and lists required parameters. Could mention idempotency or error cases, but overall sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reiterates required parameters and hints at partial update ('only the supplied fields are changed'), but does not add significant new meaning 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 the action ('update') and the resource ('Standard Cost Code' / 'Work Breakdown Structure records'), using specific verbs and nouns. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sync_standard_cost_codes' or 'bulk_update_wbs_codes', though the update verb implies targeting a single existing record.

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 provides required parameters but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bulk update, sync). It does not state preconditions, exclusions, or context where another tool would be more appropriate.

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