Update Project Currency Configuration

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description adds that it 'returns the modified object on success' and updates only supplied fields. No further side effects, error behavior, or required permissions are disclosed. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 four sentences, covering purpose, usage, behavior, and API details. It is relatively concise, though the API endpoint and category could be omitted as they are not essential for an agent's invocation.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and annotations provide basic safety info, the description reasonably explains the partial update behavior and return of modified object. It lacks details on return object structure and error conditions, but is sufficient for most use cases.

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 reiterates required parameters (company_id, project_id) but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Optional parameters are mentioned in the schema description but not elaborated in the tool description.

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 'Update a project currency configuration' with specific identifiers (company ID, project ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create/get/delete by specifying 'update an existing' and 'only the supplied fields are changed', indicating a partial update.

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 this tool: 'Use this to update an existing Currency Configurations'. It implies not to use for creation or deletion, and notes that only supplied fields are changed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives.

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