Approve Payments Beneficiary

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) indicate mutation without destruction. The description adds that it performs a partial update (only supplied fields changed) and returns the modified object. This is consistent with annotations and provides useful context beyond them.

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 (three sentences) and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second gives usage guidance, third lists required parameters. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no redundant information.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, required parameters, and effect (returns modified object). Given the tool's simplicity (few parameters, no output schema required), this is adequately complete. It lacks mention of potential errors or prerequisites beyond parameters, but overall sufficient.

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?

All three parameters are described in the input schema with clear meanings. The description restates the required parameters but adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value in this dimension.

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 (approve), resource (payments beneficiary), and required parameters. It distinguishes from similar tools by specifying the approval operation and noting it updates an existing Payments entry, which is distinct from other payment-related tools.

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 usage context: it's for approving a beneficiary by updating an existing Payments entry with only supplied fields. It lists required parameters and references the Procore API endpoint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools.

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