billing_node_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'update', which implies mutation but does not disclose side effects, whether changes are reversible, any required permissions, or what the response will be. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single short sentence with no fluff, which is efficient. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, but it could have added more context without becoming verbose.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the effect of the update, whether only pricePerMonth is updated or if other fields are supported, or any constraints. An agent might call this tool without understanding the full impact, especially since it is a mutation.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (uuid and pricePerMonth), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional information about parameter usage, formats, or relationships. Therefore, the description adds no value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the verb 'update' and the resource 'billing node', which is clear about the action. However, it does not distinguish from other update tools such as nodes_update or billing_provider_update, and it doesn't specify what aspects of the billing node are updated beyond what the schema hints at. The description is nearly a restatement of the tool name, so it provides minimal differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, whether this is a partial or full update, or any conditions for using it. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema, which is minimal and lacks explicit context.

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