qbo_employees_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the sparse-update behavior and required fields, but it does not disclose potential effects like uniqueness constraints on DisplayName or what happens to omitted fields. The minor discrepancy between 'Id' in description and 'employeeId' in schema could cause confusion.

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?

Very concise: two sentences that front-load the action ('Sparse-update an existing Employee record') and the key constraint ('Only provided fields are changed'). No unnecessary words.

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 sparse-update tool with 15 fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior adequately. However, it could be more complete by mentioning the need to fetch the record first for SyncToken (though schema describes that) and potential constraints like DisplayName uniqueness.

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 each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds only that 'Id and SyncToken are required' (though schema already marks employeeId, SyncToken, DisplayName as required). No additional semantic value 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 it is for sparse-updating an existing Employee record, with the key behavior that only provided fields are changed. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (create, get, list, search) by focusing on update semantics.

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 says 'Only provided fields are changed; Id and SyncToken are required,' which tells the agent what to include. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other employee tools (e.g., when to update vs. create) or mention prerequisites like fetching the record first to obtain SyncToken (though the schema description for SyncToken does).

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