update_business_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It valuably discloses partial-update semantics ('Only the provided fields are changed'), but says nothing about permission requirements, error behavior when neither/both IDs are supplied, or the effect of unknown field names. Meaningful but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and addressing mechanism, then the partial-update rule and the ID exclusivity rule. 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?

A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema relies on the description, which covers addressing and partial-update behavior but omits permissions, failure modes, and return expectations. Adequate but with clear gaps for a write operation.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description contributes information the schema does not express: the mutual-exclusivity rule for recId/publicId (the schema has no oneOf). That added constraint meaningfully improves correct invocation.

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 precise verb+resource ('Update fields of an existing business object record') and clarifies the addressing scheme (busObRecId or public ID). It's clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like create_business_object or delete_business_object.

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 no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and never names an alternative tool. The 'exactly one of recId / publicId' note is an argument constraint, not usage routing, so an agent must infer that this is the mutation counterpart to create/delete.

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