update_bill_payment

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states the obvious mutation. It does not mention required permissions, irreversibility, side effects on related bills, error cases, or the response format, and even the schema note that body is passed through to Bigcapital is not surfaced in the description.

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 extremely short but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficient packaging. It contains no front-loaded scoping, caveats, or routing clues, so the single sentence does not earn its place as a useful definition.

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 write operation with a free-form nested body, no output schema, no annotations, and many accounting siblings, this description omits nearly everything needed to safely invoke it. An agent cannot determine valid body payload, required state of the bill payment, or expected return.

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 schema already names id and body, where body is described as a pass-through object; the description adds no parameter-level meaning. With schema coverage at only 50% and no elaboration on what should go into the body, the definition falls short of helping an agent construct a valid call.

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 'Update a bill payment.' restates the tool name almost verbatim and identifies the operation and object type, but offers no details on what fields can be updated or how it differs from update_bill or update_payment_received. It is a tautology rather than a functional definition.

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 the many sibling tools, such as create_bill_payment, get_bill_payment, or update_bill. The description provides no context cues, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to guess.

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