update_payment_gateway

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

The annotations only provide idempotentHint and openWorldHint, with no readOnly or destructive hints. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that gateways originate from plugins and cannot be created or deleted, which clarifies the resource lifecycle. It also implies modifications are persistent. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not detail side effects like how the enabled flag affects checkout or whether settings are merged or replaced.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately providing use cases. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema details. This is optimally 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?

The tool has 7 parameters and a nested settings object, but the schema covers all parameters. There is no output schema, so a mention of return type would help, but the description provides essential operational context (what actions are possible, lifecycle constraints) that makes the tool usable. It doesn't explain response behavior or whether the update replaces all settings, but these are minor gaps given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of list/get sibling tools for reference.

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 baseline is 3 per the rubric. The description's mention of 'enable/disable, change titles, or modify settings' maps to the enabled, title, and settings parameters, but does not add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. It does not clarify nuances like how the settings object merges with existing settings, which could be a semantic gap, but the schema already thoroughly documents each parameter.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('payment gateway'), and lists concrete actions (enable/disable, change titles, modify settings). It also distinguishes the tool from potential create/delete operations by explicitly noting that gateways cannot be created or deleted, which differentiates it from any sibling tools that might perform those actions.

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 explicit usage examples ('use to enable/disable gateways, change titles, or modify settings'), giving clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like list_payment_gateways or get_payment_gateway, but the guidance that gateways come from plugins and cannot be created/deleted effectively tells the agent not to attempt those operations. This is clear context, though it lacks a direct 'when not to use' statement referencing siblings.

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