update_job_work_out_order

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

The description adds concrete behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it explicitly says the tool replaces item lines, component lists, party, order number, and narration, which aligns with destructiveHint=true. It references matching/collision caveats from another tool but does not describe them, so it stops short of fully disclosing edge-case behaviors.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first sentence states the action and its effect, the second sentence points to related tool definitions. It is front-loaded and every word 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?

The tool has a complex nested schema but the schema fully documents all parameters, and annotations cover safety. The description handles purpose and replacement behavior well, but it defers 'matching/collision caveats' to update_job_work_in_order rather than explaining them, so an agent must consult another tool definition for a complete picture.

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%, and every parameter already has a detailed description in the input schema. The description only notes that voucherNumber is the added field compared to create_job_work_out_order, which does not add substantive meaning beyond 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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing Job Work Out Order'), and details exactly what is replaced: item lines, component lists, party, order number, and narration. It also distinguishes itself from create_job_work_out_order by noting the addition of voucherNumber, making the tool's scope immediately clear.

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 names create_job_work_out_order as the creation counterpart and update_job_work_in_order as the analogous update for in-orders, which helps an agent route between these similar tools. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this when you need to update an existing out-order and not when creating one,' so the guidance is clear 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.