myob_customer_prepare_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key approval-before-commit requirement, which is important, but provides no detail on authentication requirements, what happens after preparation, or how the approval workflow proceeds. This is minimal but non-trivial transparency.

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 10-word sentence that leads with the action ('Prepare update') and adds the critical approval constraint. It is concise and front-loaded with no filler, earning top marks for its size.

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 prepare-mutation tool with approval flow and three parameters, this one-line description is insufficient. It omits how json_body should be structured, how the approval process is initiated or completed, and how this tool relates to generic prepare/commit tools. While an output schema exists, the text alone leaves significant gaps.

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 provides no parameter explanations. 'uid' and 'business_id' are somewhat self-explanatory from names, but 'json_body' is an opaque additionalProperties object with no guidance on expected shape, required fields, or update semantics, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid request.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Prepare update' and resource 'customer contact', clearly indicating it stages an update for a customer. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the generic myob_entity_prepare_update sibling or mention the specific fields that can be updated.

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 phrase 'customer contact' implies this tool is for updating customer data, and the approval mention gives some context. Yet it does not explicitly contrast with create/delete tools, generic entity update, or explain when the generic myob_entity_prepare_update should be used instead.

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