po_revise

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the snapshot/append-only audit behavior (po_revision, H-AUDIT), the revision increment, the preservation of received_qty/billed_qty, the P8-gated re-send safety property, and idempotency semantics. This is rich behavioral context beyond what any schema could convey.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: state transition, audit behavior, quantity preservation, re-send gating, valid-state constraint, and idempotency. It is front-loaded with the core action and uses compact technical notation (sent -> draft, H-AUDIT, P8-gated) that is efficient for an agent.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: what changes, what is preserved, what is recorded, when it is valid, and what happens on replay. The only minor gap is explicit parameter semantics, but the operation's context makes the required parameters clear. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the domain meaning of the operation but does not explicitly map the five parameters (workspaceId, poId, actor, reason, idempotencyKey) to their roles. However, the idempotency statement and the state-transition context make the purpose of poId, workspaceId, and idempotencyKey inferable. The description adds meaningful context but leaves some parameter-level detail 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Revidiere eine gesendete Bestellung') and immediately states the state transition (sent -> draft). It names the sibling po_upsert as the follow-up editing tool and po_send as the re-send path, which distinguishes it from the many other PO tools in the sibling list.

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 explicitly states when the tool is valid ('Only a SENT PO is revisable') and lists the invalid states (draft/received/closed/cancelled -> invalid_transition). It also names the alternative editing path (po_upsert) and the re-send path (po_send), giving clear routing guidance.

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