qbo_bills_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses sparse-update behavior and required fields (SyncToken), but does not mention side effects, permissions, or concurrency handling beyond the required SyncToken. Acceptable but not rich.

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 tight sentences: first states action, second clarifies partial update and required fields. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Despite good parameter descriptions in schema, the tool has 9 params, nested objects, and no output schema. The description omits return value, error handling, or process (e.g., fetch SyncToken first). Leaves gaps for agent understanding.

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 that only provided fields are changed and SyncToken is required, but the schema already marks the required fields. No additional meaning beyond the schema's detailed parameter descriptions.

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 'Sparse-update an existing Bill record' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like qbo_bills_create by noting 'only provided fields are changed' and requiring SyncToken, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., qbo_bills_create for new bills, qbo_bills_get for retrieval). The description implies it's for updating existing bills, but fails to provide context or exclusions.

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