call_onchange

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and 'Saves nothing' reinforces that safety profile rather than contradicting it. However, the description adds little beyond the annotations: it does not describe error behavior, how the simulated values are structured, or any server-side effects. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this lands at a solid 3.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the core behavior is front-loaded and the no-persistence guarantee follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 4-parameter tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description usefully signals what comes back ('the values Odoo would compute') and that nothing is written. The remaining gap is that the shape of the returned computed values is left unspecified, but the essential call-correctness information is present.

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%, with all four parameters (including the nested 'values' and 'fields_spec') documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond what the schema already states, so the 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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Simulate a form change and return the values Odoo would compute.' An agent can immediately tell this is a dry-run computation, not a persistence operation. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling such as update_record, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

'Simulate' plus 'Saves nothing' conveys a clear usage context: call this when you want computed onchange values without mutating data, making it the safe preview counterpart to update_record/create_record. There is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it or a named alternative, so it stops short of 5.

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