Update Contract Payment

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing the ERP locking behavior and that only supplied fields are updated. No contradiction 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?

Six sentences covering purpose, constraints, and return value. It is front-loaded with the action. Slight redundancy ('Update a Contract Payment' and 'Update...Commitments') but overall efficient.

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 mutation tool with high schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the ERP locking context and return behavior. It could mention error scenarios but is adequate for selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining that attributes besides 'attachments', 'origin_id', and 'origin_data' become locked if synced with ERP. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool updates a Contract Payment (Commitments) and returns the modified object. The verb 'Update' matches the action. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'create_contract_payment', the purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 mentions ERP syncing locks certain attributes, providing a condition for usage. Required parameters are listed. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from the massive sibling list.

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