edit_installment_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error handling, or what the response entails. The mention of 'mutable via the Tunzaa API' adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. However, the second sentence about 'mutable via the Tunzaa API' could be more integrated or omitted if it doesn't add actionable guidance, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter coverage, the description is inadequate. It fails to provide necessary context on behavior, usage, or output, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

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 67% (2 out of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter meanings, constraints, or examples beyond the schema's details for 'plan_id' and 'updates'. The 'address' parameter lacks documentation in both schema and description, but the baseline is 3 due to moderate schema coverage.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing installment plan'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_installment' or 'delete_installment_plan', which would require more specific context about when to use each.

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 provides minimal guidance, mentioning only that it's for updating plans and referencing the Tunzaa API for mutable fields. It lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, alternatives (e.g., vs. create_installment), prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage context unclear.

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