Update Work Order Contract Line Item

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent, which aligns with the update description. The description adds value by noting automatic budget line item creation and partial update semantics ('only the supplied fields are changed'), providing important behavioral 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 functional but slightly verbose, mixing purpose, side effects, usage instructions, and endpoint info. It could be more concise by front-loading the core action and separating implementation details.

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 4 parameters (one nested object) and no output schema, the description covers the basic update operation and a key side effect. However, it lacks details on permissible fields in line_item, error handling, or typical use cases, leaving gaps for an agent.

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% with basic descriptions for each parameter. The description lists required parameters but does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as what the line_item object should contain. The hint about partial update is useful but limited.

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 line item in a work order contract and provides the API endpoint. It differentiates from creation by specifying 'update an existing Commitments', but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like update_work_order_contract_detail_line_item.

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 says 'Use this to update an existing Commitments', implying it is for updating existing items. It also mentions the automatic budget line item creation. However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for different scenarios.

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