paydirt_update_form

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint. The description adds key context that only supplied fields are updated, which is beyond the annotations and prevents incorrect full-replacement assumptions. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence provides the primary use case immediately, and the second sentence clarifies partial update behavior. Every word earns its place.

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 a clear output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and partial update semantics. It could explicitly mention error behavior for missing form_id, but that is implied by 'existing form' and not essential for tool selection.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds semantic value by mapping fields to user-facing concepts ('initial question', 'AI follow-up guidance') and explicitly stating that only supplied fields are updated, clarifying the optional and partial nature of the update.

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 updates an existing form's name, initial question, or AI follow-up guidance, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like paydirt_create_form and paydirt_update_app by targeting existing forms and specific fields.

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 a clear trigger condition ('when the user asks to change an existing form...') and clarifies partial update behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scoping is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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