infra_billing_update_infra_billing_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only discloses the HTTP method (PATCH) and route. It never says this is a bulk mutation that rewrites next-billing dates for multiple node UUIDs, nor does it mention the preview/confirm flow that the schema hints at. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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 short lines with no filler, and the endpoint is front-loaded. It is not padded, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, so it sits at the minimum-viable level.

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 mutation tool with a nested required body, no annotations, no output schema, and half the parameters undocumented, the description should explain the update semantics and confirmation behavior. As written it omits everything an agent would need beyond the raw route.

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 50%: the nested body properties (uuids, nextBillingAt) are undocumented, while only 'confirm' carries a schema description. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on the required body object.

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 states a verb and resource ("Update infra billing nodes"), which is enough to separate it from the create/delete billing-node siblings. However, it does not specify what is actually being updated (billing dates for a set of nodes), so the purpose is only minimally more informative than the tool name itself.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as infra_billing_create_infra_billing_node or infra_billing_delete_infra_billing_node. The agent gets only the HTTP verb and path, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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