Update disposition

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

Discloses dry-run by default with confirm:true required to execute, and read-merge-write semantics so unspecified fields retain values. These are not conveyed by the annotations, adding critical behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, merge behavior, and dry-run. Front-loaded with the primary action, no filler.

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?

Captures the key behavioral nuances (pending scope, dry-run, merge semantics) and field categories. With 22 parameters, it is not exhaustive on every individual parameter but provides sufficient orientation for an agent to infer likely intent.

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?

Despite low schema coverage (18%), the description groups parameters into meaningful categories (type, date, note, TTSN/OTSN, PO/invoice/tracking, theft-loss/destroyed) and explains the confirm semantics. This compensates reasonably for the undocumented parameters.

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?

Description states 'Edit header fields on a PENDING disposition' and lists specific fields, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like commit_disposition or dispose. The verb 'edit' plus 'PENDING disposition' precisely defines scope.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage to 'PENDING' dispositions, implying it is not for committed or locked ones. Does not explicitly name alternatives, but the pending restriction provides clear guidance.

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