update_material_out

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful context on top by stating the tool replaces existing item lines and narration, and it references matching/collision caveats from update_material_in. This is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and effect, the second efficiently points to related tool definitions. 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?

For a mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. The only gap is that the matching/collision caveats are not self-contained and rely on the agent consulting update_material_in for full details, but these are referenced explicitly.

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%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a cross-reference to create_material_out and the fact that voucherNumber is included, but no deeper semantic nuance. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 Material Out voucher') and explains the exact effect (replacing item lines and narration). It also distinguishes itself from create_material_out by noting it adds voucherNumber, and cross-references update_material_in for matching/collision behavior, so an agent can clearly separate it from siblings.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when an existing Material Out voucher must be modified, as opposed to create_material_out for new vouchers. It also mentions 'same matching/collision caveats as update_material_in', which points the agent to relevant alternative behavior, though it doesn't explicitly spell out when-not-to-use scenarios.

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