brc_update_payment

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the preflight workflow, that writing only happens after explicit user confirmation, and that a plain-English draft should be shown to the user. No contradictions are present.

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 relatively concise given the complex workflow it explains. It front-loads the main action and then provides step-by-step guidance. Could be slightly shorter, but necessary detail is present.

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 the tool has 5 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and a complex interaction pattern, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly how to handle preflight and confirmation, and covers all necessary behavioral aspects.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond schema for the confirmWrite parameter, explaining its usage in the two-step process and that it must only be set true after user confirmation. Other parameters are adequately described in schema.

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: 'Updates a BRC payment using merged fields.' It uses a specific verb ('updates') and resource ('BRC payment'), differentiating it from sibling tools like brc_update_cash_payment or brc_update_purchase. The additional detail about the two-step confirmWrite process adds to clarity.

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 explicitly explains the two-step workflow: first call without confirmWrite for a preview, then after user confirmation in a later message, call with confirmWrite: true. It warns that 'passing preflight is not confirmation.' It provides clear guidance on when to use each step, though it could mention alternatives like other update tools for different entities.

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