update_nk_settlement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavior: the operation is scoped to one settlement and does not affect other tenants. However, it omits other important traits such as permission requirements, reversibility, or any side effects (e.g., notifications or document updates).

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 just two short sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the scoping note in the second adds essential context without any fluff.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It leaves critical gaps: how to identify the settlement (unitId/nkId), what the amounts represent, and any side effects or prerequisites. The agent would need to rely on implicit knowledge or external context to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'status, amounts, notes' which groups some parameters, but it does not explain the required identifiers (unitId, nkId) or the meaning of the individual amount fields (balanceEuros, prepaidEuros, totalCostsEuros). The description adds minimal value over the raw 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 uses a specific verb ('Patch') with a clear resource ('one NK settlement') and lists the main fields affected ('status, amounts, notes'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_nk_settlements (listing) and create_nk_letter (creating a letter).

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 phrase 'Does not change other tenants in the same year' provides a clear scoping guarantee, which helps decide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of full guidance.

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