Update bill line item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it flags this as a write operation, describes the two-step preview/confirm protocol, and discloses the non-obvious side effect that update_original_record=true writes back to the original time entry. It stops short of covering permissions, reversibility, or preview-token lifetime.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core mutation and followed immediately by the write-back caveat and the preview/confirm protocol. No filler.

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 an 8-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and the safety workflow. Remaining gaps are minor: what the preview returns and any permission requirements are not stated.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names description, quantity, price, date, note, and update_original_record and explains the confirm flow. It still leaves the meaning of the confirm token and the price/quantity units partly to inference.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Updates a bill line item') and enumerates the mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what is being changed versus clio_bill_update. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from any sibling tool, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 gives an explicit workflow: preview first, then confirm with the token from the preview, and the confirm parameter adds when to skip the preview. That is clear usage context, but there are no stated exclusions or named alternatives.

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