qbo_purchase_orders_update

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

The description adds the concept of 'sparse-update' beyond the schema, but lacks details on error handling, auth needs, or behavior if SyncToken is stale. With no annotations, more behavioral context is expected.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and directly states the core purpose and requirement, with 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?

Given the high parameter count (12) and nested objects, the description is too minimal. It does not cover return values, error handling, or how to handle the SyncToken lifecycle, leaving significant gaps for a complex update tool.

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 confirms 'Id and SyncToken are required' and the sparse nature, but adds little beyond the schema definitions.

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 verb 'sparse-update' and the resource 'PurchaseOrder record', and highlights the key feature that only provided fields are changed, distinguishing it from other QBO tools.

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 by mentioning required fields (Id and SyncToken), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclude specific scenarios.

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