Atualizar plano de assinatura

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint as true and idempotentHint as true. The description adds valuable context about checking the effect on linked subscriptions, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it omits other behavioral details like reversibility or permission requirements.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose concisely, the second provides essential usage guidance and a warning. Every sentence is efficient and front-loaded without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose and a key warning about linked subscriptions, but it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., valid plan ID) or clarify that only 'name' is updatable, leaving some gaps for completeness.

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 the input schema already explains each parameter. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage tips for the parameters, resulting in adequate but not enhanced semantics.

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 subscription plan's allowed data and mentions reviewing recurrence configuration. However, 'allowed data' is vague and the input schema only shows a 'name' field, so it's not fully specific about what can be updated.

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 advises checking effects on linked subscriptions before altering, implying caution. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, such as create_plan or delete_plan, though the context of sibling tools provides some distinction.

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