update_business_case

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: shallow merge, propagation of staleness, and suggestion to recalculate financials. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It lacks return value details but is otherwise transparent.

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 three concise sentences with no wasted words: first sentence states purpose, second explains behavior and side effect, third suggests follow-up. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the merge behavior, side effect on implementation plan, and follow-up action. It could mention return value or error conditions but 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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the sections merging behavior and listing common keys, which goes beyond the schema's propertyNames description.

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 business case sections with a specific verb and resource, and explains the shallow-merge behavior. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like recalculate_financials.

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 usage context by explaining the merge and side effect (propagates staleness), and suggests calling recalculate_financials after updating. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other update tools like update_blueprint or when to avoid using this tool.

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