stage_po_amendment

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it records a pending record, validates PO existence, requires at least one change, returns pending_approval and approval_id, models a PATCH with If-Match/x-csrf-token, is gated, and executes only on human approval. This is rich behavioral context beyond what annotations would provide.

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 well-structured with a bold intro, bulleted parameters, and a concise behavior paragraph. Every sentence contributes critical information without redundancy or wasted words.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameter semantics, validation logic, side effects, authentication requirements, gating, and return values. Given the output schema exists, the description adequately handles all relevant context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, but the description explains each parameter: po_id with example format, new_qty as optional order quantity, and new_unit_price as optional net price per unit. It also notes that at least one change must be present, adding meaning beyond the bare 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 tool stages (not executes) a PO amendment for human approval. It specifies the verb 'STAGE' and the resource 'PO amendment', and distinguishes from siblings like 'approve' (which would execute) and 'get_purchase_order' (read-only).

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 explicitly states the tool is for staging changes for human approval and that execution happens only after approval. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use approve to execute'), but the context is clear enough to infer appropriate usage.

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