qbo_vendors_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the sparse-update behavior ('Only provided fields are changed') and requirement for Id and SyncToken, which is valuable. However, it omits that DisplayName is also required per the schema, and does not mention what happens if SyncToken is stale or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear behavioral note. Every word earns its place, no fluff.

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 tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the essential update semantics but lacks details about the response format, error conditions, or the need to fetch the vendor first for a valid SyncToken (though the schema mentions this). It's adequate but not comprehensive for an agent to fully anticipate tool behavior.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions Id and SyncToken are required, but the schema already documents these, and it doesn't add new meaning about the other parameters. It does reinforce the sparse-update semantics, but that's already in the tool name.

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 explicitly states 'Sparse-update an existing Vendor record' with a specific verb ('update'), resource ('Vendor'), and scope ('existing'). This distinguishes it from qbo_vendors_create, and the note 'Only provided fields are changed' clarifies it's a partial update, differentiating it from any full-replace behavior.

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 modifying existing vendor data and distinguishes from create by saying 'existing Vendor record' and requiring Id and SyncToken. However, it doesn't explicitly name qbo_vendors_create as the alternative for new records or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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