Update Production Order

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the tool is a write operation with potential side effects. The description does not elaborate on destructive behavior (e.g., whether previous values are lost, if updates are reversible). It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the 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 very concise: a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, scope, and key constraint. Every part earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not explain the return value or confirmation of the update. It also omits whether the update is partial or full replacement. While the core information is present, additional context would improve completeness for an update operation.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, but the 'fields' parameter is an open object with no specific schema. The description compensates by giving example fields (dates, quantity) and explicitly stating what cannot be updated (components/operations), adding significant 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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'production order', and specifies the types of fields that can be updated (dates, quantity). It also explicitly excludes components and operations, which distinguishes this tool from potential sibling updates.

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 a clear usage boundary by stating what is not updatable (components/operations). However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or provide when-to-use guidance beyond the scope.

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