myob_bill_prepare_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a critical behavioral trait—that the update is not immediately committed and requires approval first—which informs the agent that this is a non-destructive, staged operation. It does not mention return formats or other side effects, but the approval requirement is a significant and useful disclosure that goes beyond the raw tool name.

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 sentences, zero wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately adds the critical approval requirement. It is appropriately sized for the tool's function, being both concise and informative within its scope.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits essential context for a mutation-with-workflow tool. It does not explain how the approval step is initiated (e.g., via myob_approval_approve), how the prepared update is retrieved, or what happens to the update if approval is denied. The lack of annotations and parameter descriptions makes this description insufficient for an agent to fully understand the end-to-end flow of preparing, approving, and committing a bill update.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate. It gives no explanation of what 'uid', 'json_body', 'layout', or 'business_id' mean in the context of updating a bill. The only hint is the phrase 'update of a purchase bill,' from which one might infer that 'json_body' contains changed fields and 'uid' identifies the bill, but this is left implicit. The description adds minimal value over the schema's property names.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination ('Prepare update of a purchase bill') that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like myob_bill_prepare_create (create vs. update) and read-only tools like myob_bill_get. It also notes the two-phase nature with 'Requires approval before commit,' reinforcing its unique role.

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 implies usage for updating a purchase bill via the prepare/approve/commit workflow, and 'Requires approval before commit' provides a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over generic alternatives like myob_entity_prepare_update or myob_raw_prepare_mutation, nor does it mention exclusions. The usage context is clear but not explicitly framed against alternatives.

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