Update Timesheet To Budget Configuration

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds that only supplied fields are changed (partial update) and that the modified object is returned on success. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying the update behavior and response format, enhancing transparency.

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 four sentences long, with the core purpose stated first. It is front-loaded and includes essential details like partial update behavior, return value, required parameters, and API reference. The API endpoint detail could be considered extraneous, but overall it is well-structured and concise.

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 there is no output schema, the description usefully states that the modified object is returned on success. It covers the main behavioral aspects and required parameters. It does not address error scenarios or authorization, but for a simple update operation, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description does not add new meaning beyond what's in the schema. It redundantly lists required parameters that are already defined in the input schema. No additional parameter behavior, constraints, or relationships are explained.

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 timesheet-to-budget configuration, specifying it modifies existing Field Productivity records. It includes the API endpoint and required parameters, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create or delete, which would elevate clarity further.

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 context for use: 'Use this to update an existing Field Productivity records (only the supplied fields are changed).' This implies partial updates and that a record must exist. It lists required parameters but does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools, such as create_timesheet_to_budget_configuration for new configurations.

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