Update Project Payor Pays Setting

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool performs a partial update (only supplied fields changed) and returns the modified object. It does not disclose authorization needs, side effects, or failure modes, but this is partially covered by 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 concise, containing four sentences. It includes the API endpoint, which may be helpful but adds verbosity. The phrase 'existing Payments' is slightly confusing, but overall the structure is clear.

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 simplicity of the tool (updating a boolean for projects) and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. However, it lacks detail on the response object structure and error conditions, which would be beneficial since no output schema exists.

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%, and the schema already describes each parameter. The description repeats the parameter list but does not add new meaning or context beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'payor pays setting for projects'. It differentiates from sibling tools by specifying the exact endpoint and function. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 'Use this to update an existing Payments (only the supplied fields are changed)' and lists required parameters, indicating a partial update. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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