Deactivate Early Pay Program

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds that it returns the modified object on success, which is useful. It doesn't elaborate on side effects or state changes, but no contradictions 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?

The description is relatively short and front-loads the main action. It includes some repetition of required parameters and API endpoint details, but overall it's appropriately sized.

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 deactivation tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basics. However, it doesn't explain what deactivation means in practice or how it differs from other early pay program actions. The mention of 'update' adds confusion. Adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (company_id and early_pay_program_id). The description restates them as required but adds no new semantic value beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3.

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 it deactivates an early pay program for a given company. However, it also says 'Use this to update an existing Payments' which is slightly confusing and doesn't align perfectly with deactivation, but the primary purpose is clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_early_pay_program or create_early_pay_program. The phrase 'Use this to update an existing Payments' is misleading because the tool deactivates, not updates.

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