update_payment_received

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update' and does not state whether the operation patches or replaces, whether the record must already exist, what happens on failure, or any 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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words, so it is structurally easy to read. However, it is so terse that it under-specifies the tool's behavior, which moves it from genuine conciseness to under-specification.

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 a required nested body, no output schema, and no annotations, an agent needs more context to call this tool correctly. The description does not explain the body structure, the update semantics, or the expected response, leaving significant gaps.

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 50%: the id parameter has no semantic description, and body is only described as 'Request body passed through to Bigcapital'. The tool description adds nothing to explain what fields the body should contain or how the parameters relate to the update operation.

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 'payment received record', so the action is unambiguous. However, it is essentially a rephrasing of the tool name and adds no detail about what specific fields or effects an update involves.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of related tools like create_payment_received, get_payment_received, or list_payments_received. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, so an agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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