Update acquisition

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint:true and destructiveHint:false, and the description adds valuable context: read-merge-write semantics ('unspecified fields keep their current values') and the dry-run default ('Dry-run by default; pass confirm:true'). This goes beyond the structured data and describes precisely how the operation behaves, including the non-destructive but mutating nature. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by behavioral details. Every sentence contributes meaningful information. The final 'Write.' is slightly redundant but harmless. Overall, it is concise and well-structured.

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 (10 parameters, no output schema) and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: target state (pending), merge semantics, dry-run default, and confirmation flag. It sufficiently prepares an agent to invoke the tool correctly without needing to infer hidden 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 coverage is only 40%, with descriptions for id, type, confirm, and auditUser. The description compensates by listing the editable field groups ('type, date, note, PO/invoice/tracking, externalId') and explaining the merge behavior, which clarifies that unspecified parameters retain their current values. This adds semantic meaning to the parameter list even if it doesn't detail each field individually.

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 tool's function: 'Edit header fields (type, date, note, PO/invoice/tracking, externalId) on a PENDING acquisition.' This uses a specific verb (edit) and resource (pending acquisition), and lists the exact fields affected. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like update_acquisition_item and commit_acquisition by focusing on header fields of pending acquisitions.

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 implicitly limits usage to pending acquisitions ('on a PENDING acquisition'), giving context about when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough to differentiate from related operations. The dry-run default also provides a safety guideline for testing before execution.

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