myob_supplier_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 one key behavioral trait: the operation requires approval before commit. However, it does not explain what 'prepare' entails (e.g., validation, locking, creating a pending request), what happens after approval, or any side effects. The description is too sparse to provide adequate 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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The first sentence mostly restates the tool name, and the second adds a single caveat. While there is no wasted wording, the brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, with zero parameter documentation, no annotations, and minimal description, the overall context is incomplete. The agent lacks guidance on how the approval workflow operates, what identifiers are needed, and how the json_body should be structured, making the description insufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no details about the parameters (uid, json_body, business_id). The description does not explain what 'uid' refers to, what 'json_body' should contain, or the role of 'business_id'. This leaves the agent unable to construct valid arguments without external knowledge.

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 prepares an update to a supplier contact, using a specific verb ('prepare') and resource ('supplier contact'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like myob_supplier_prepare_create (create vs update) and myob_entity_prepare_update (specific to suppliers).

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 mentions 'Requires approval before commit', which implies a two-phase workflow (prepare then approve/commit). However, it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as having a valid supplier UID or authorization. The usage context is implied but not fully explicit.

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