Update Project Account

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description aligns with these by stating 'Updates' (write) and 'only the supplied fields are changed' (partial update, consistent with idempotent PUT). No additional behavioral traits like auth needs or side effects are disclosed. The openWorldHint=true is not addressed.

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 4 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key behavior. It includes return behavior and API reference, which is slightly extraneous but not wasteful. Every sentence adds some value, though the API endpoint details could be considered redundant if tool metadata already provides that.

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 5-parameter update tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, partial update nature, required params, and API reference. It doesn't explain response format (acceptable without output schema) or prerequisites. Given the annotations and schema, it is reasonably complete.

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?

Input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description reinforces required params (company_id, project_id) and implies optionality for others via 'only the supplied fields are changed'. This adds context beyond the schema but does not provide detailed semantics per parameter.

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 updates the account configuration for a project, specifically for Payments. However, the phrasing 'update an existing Payments' is slightly ambiguous, possibly missing a noun like 'account'. The purpose is distinct from siblings like update_purchase_order_contract or update_submittal, but no explicit differentiation is provided.

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 tells when to use the tool ('Use this to update an existing Payments') and mentions partial update behavior. However, it does not specify when not to use it or provide alternatives among the many update tools available. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparisons.

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