edit_vendor_credit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behaviors: lines can be added, updated, or deleted via specific fields; DepartmentRef is header-level only. It does not mention permissions or return values, but covers key behavioral aspects well.

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 concise with four sentences. It starts with the core purpose, then lists updatable fields, details line rules, and adds a constraint note. No redundant words; each sentence adds necessary information.

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 mutation tool with 7 params and no output schema, the description explains input behavior well. It covers line item operations and a key constraint. Missing response details (e.g., success confirmation or updated object) but otherwise complete given the QBO context and sibling tools.

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 100% with descriptions. The description adds value beyond schema by providing line manipulation rules (requires amount and account_name for new lines, delete=true for removal) and a note about DepartmentRef constraint, which is not in the 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 action ('Modify an existing vendor credit') and the resource ('vendor credit'). It lists specific updatable fields (vendor, date, memo, ref number, and/or lines), distinguishing it from siblings like create_vendor_credit or get_vendor_credit.

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 (modify existing) but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not contrast with alternatives like create_vendor_credit or other edit tools, though it provides specific line manipulation rules.

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