qbo_attachables_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys the non-destructive nature of sparse updates but omits expected behavior on success/failure, side effects, or authentication needs. Basic but adequate for a simple mutation.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded and efficient. Every word earns its place, no redundancy.

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?

The description explains the core concept and required fields but lacks details on return values, error handling, or how this fits among sibling attachable tools. Given 8 parameters and no output schema, more context would be beneficial.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context that only provided fields are changed and that Id and SyncToken are required, but this largely repeats information already in the schema. No additional semantics beyond schema.

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 clearly states the action ('sparse-update') and resource ('existing Attachable record'), with the nuance that only provided fields are changed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, get, list, and upload.

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 implies use for partial updates and requires Id and SyncToken, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., qbo_attachables_upload for new file). No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites beyond what is in parameter descriptions.

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