update_outgoing_payment

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

Annotations already signal that this is a mutating (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and non-destructive operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as side effects on related bills, approval workflows, or constraints beyond the schema. The rich parameter constraints are present in the schema but not in the description.

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 short (three words) and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It is a fragment, not a full sentence, and provides no additional explanation, which limits its usefulness.

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 14 parameters, 4 required fields, and complex business rules (e.g., amount limits, execution date constraints), a three-word description is grossly inadequate. While the schema covers parameter details, the description lacks an overview of the operation's purpose, high-level behavior, or exceptional cases, leaving the agent under-informed.

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?

The input schema has detailed descriptions for 86% of parameters, meeting the high-coverage baseline. The description itself says nothing about parameters, but the schema compensates well, so no additional compensation is needed.

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 'Edit Outgoing Payment' clearly identifies the action (edit) and resource (outgoing payment), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list. However, it lacks detail on what specific aspects can be edited, making it clear but minimally informative.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or comparisons to similar actions such as create_outgoing_payment or update_payment. An agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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