qbo_departments_update

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It correctly indicates sparse-update behavior and required fields, but fails to mention potential side effects (e.g., cascading to sub-departments), error handling (e.g., nonexistent department), or concurrency issues beyond SyncToken requirement.

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?

A single, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key constraints without extraneous information.

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 covers the core action but omits what the tool returns (e.g., updated record object, confirmation). For a mutation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this lack of return value information leaves the agent partially informed.

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?

All parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by emphasizing the sparse-update nature and the critical role of SyncToken, which goes beyond the schema's field 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 the action ('sparse-update'), resource ('Department record'), and key constraints ('only provided fields changed; Id and SyncToken are required'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, get, list, and search.

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 usage for partial updates by stating 'only provided fields are changed' and that SyncToken is required (fetch record first). However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios like creating new departments or updating all fields, nor does it compare directly with the create sibling.

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