brc_update_accrual

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the update action and the confirmWrite safeguard, but does not describe whether the update is partial or full, idempotency, or what the tool returns (no output schema). The concurrency control via timestamp is implied but not explicitly stated. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 serving a purpose: first defines action, second provides prerequisite, third gives critical constraint. No wasted words, front-loaded with the verb. Excellent conciseness.

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 11 parameters, 8 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential workflow: get first, then update with confirmation. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., success indicator or updated object) and update semantics (merge vs replace). Still, it is fairly complete for the critical usage.

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 parameters are fully described. The description adds context: timestamp is base64 from the accrual, confirmWrite must only be true after user confirmation, and that the timeretrieval step is needed. This enhances the schema descriptions and clarifies usage.

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 it updates an existing parent Accrual by id. It distinguishes from siblings like create, delete, get, and list by specifying 'Updates' and mentioning child accruals are not exposed. The verb and resource are specific, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 instructs to use brc_get_accrual first to retrieve current data and timestamp. Warns about child accruals not being exposed via public API. Provides critical guidance on confirmWrite: do not set to true until user has reviewed and explicitly confirmed. This clearly states when and how to use the tool, and when not to.

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