Update Purchase Requisition

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true (modification) and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether updates are partial, side effects, or error conditions. It carries minimal value beyond the structured 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 a single, clear sentence. It is concise and front-loaded with the action and target. However, it could be structured to include key details like parameter constraints or usage hints.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description should at least indicate the return value (e.g., success confirmation or updated object). It also lacks guidance on required authorities and field validation. Given the availability of annotations, the description is still incomplete for an agent's full understanding.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description does not elaborate on what fields are allowed in the 'fields' object, leaving the agent to rely solely on schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already describes parameters.

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 'purchase requisition header', distinguishing it from read tools (list, get) and create. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools that apply to different objects, nor does it clarify that it only handles header fields (not line items).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like s4_purchase_requisition_create or s4_purchase_requisition_get. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing requisition number) or scenarios where update is appropriate.

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