qbo_vendors_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 clearly discloses the sparse-update behavior (only provided fields change) and the requirement for SyncToken. It could mention error handling (e.g., vendor not found), but the core behavioral trait is well-covered.

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 concise sentences that front-load the key information ('Sparse-update an existing Vendor record') and avoid redundancy. Every word serves a purpose.

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 tool's complexity (11 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately explains the update mechanism and required fields. It could hint at the return value (likely the updated Vendor object), but is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 the description adds limited extra meaning. It does clarify that SyncToken is required for sparse updates and advises fetching it first, which adds practical context beyond the schema. Baseline 3, plus one for this addition.

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'), the resource ('Vendor record'), and explicitly distinguishes from a full update by noting that only provided fields are changed. It also mentions required fields (Id, 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?

The description advises that SyncToken must be obtained first, implying a fetch-before-update workflow. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like 'create' or 'get', leaving the agent to infer when to use this tool versus others. Still, the sparse-update nature is clear.

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