Update Deposit

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'PATCH semantics' and 'Only the provided fields will be changed', which is consistent but does not significantly expand on behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response behavior.

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 with two sentences in English and a Spanish translation. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and behavior. Could be slightly shorter without the redundant Spanish text.

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 simple update tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential update behavior and provides an example. It does not explain return values, but the output schema likely covers that. Adequate for the complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds an example ('id='abc123', amount=750, notes='Updated retainer amount') but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already describes.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'deposit', and specifies 'PATCH semantics' and 'Only the provided fields will be changed', which distinguishes it from other tools like delete_deposit or refund_deposit.

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 gives an example but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_deposit, delete_deposit). The guidance is minimal, only indicating that only provided fields are changed.

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