Update Project Early Pay Programs

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds that it performs a partial update ('only the supplied fields are changed') and returns the modified object. This is useful but lacks details on permissions, error states, or side effects.

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 concise at four sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and includes endpoint details that may be useful but could be condensed. No superfluous content.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description only states that it returns the modified object. It does not clarify behavior when programId is omitted (optional) or potential edge cases. The mention of 'Payments' is inconsistent. Adequate but with gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description mentions required parameters (company_id, projectIds) and hints at programId's nullable usage, but adds no new information beyond what is in the schema.

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 early pay program assignments for projects, with a specific verb ('Updates') and resource ('early pay program assignments for projects'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_early_pay_programs' and 'create_early_pay_program', but the mention of 'Payments' introduces slight ambiguity.

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 lists required parameters and provides an API reference, but it does not guide when to use this tool versus siblings like 'update_early_pay_program' or create/deactivate. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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