sherweb_subscriptions_change_quantity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation 'affects billing', is 'submitted asynchronously', and returns a tracking ID rather than a completed result. These are significant behavioral details beyond what the input schema conveys.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the operation, and the second packs billing impact, async behavior, and the polling pointer. There is no filler, repetition of schema fields, or unnecessary detail.

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?

Despite lacking annotations and an output schema, the description gives the agent the key operational facts: what is changed, the billing side effect, the async submission model, and the exact status tool to poll. For a simple three-parameter mutation, this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter names and descriptions already explain quantity, customerId, and subscriptionId. The description adds only 'seats/licenses' clarification and billing impact, but does not meaningfully extend the parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Change a subscription's quantity (seats/licenses)', not a generic 'process' or 'update'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing sherweb_subscriptions_amendment_status, making clear this tool does not return a finished result.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: to change a subscription quantity. It also names the follow-up tool to poll, sherweb_subscriptions_amendment_status, and contrasts it by saying the change is 'not a finished result', guiding the agent away from expecting completion here.

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