qbo_update_employee_salary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses the most important behaviors: default confirm-screen state, the confirm=true requirement to apply, and the 'never submits payroll' limitation. It doesn't discuss auth, side effects, or return values, but the key operational traits are covered.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It states the action, then the confirmation requirement, then the key non-payroll boundary. Every sentence 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 simple 3-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, it provides essential context: what is updated, that it's an example salary, the confirm gate, and that it never submits payroll. It omits return behavior and auth requirements, but the confirmation-flow disclosure makes the call behavior sufficiently clear.

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%, so the schema already documents employee_id, annual_salary, and confirm. The description's confirm wording largely restates the schema's 'Must be true to apply. Default false (confirm screen).' and adds little beyond what is already structured.

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?

Clear verb ('Update') plus resource ('one employee's example annual salary') and an explicit boundary ('Never submits payroll'), which distinguishes it from the payroll-related sibling tools. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and what it is not for.

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?

Provides clear operational guidance: confirm screen is default behavior, pass confirm=true to apply, and never submit payroll. It gives a useful when-not-to-use signal, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative for payroll submission.

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