update_payment_customization

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Update an existing payment customization.' It does not describe whether the update is partial or full replacement, what happens to omitted fields, or any side effects like invalidation of cached settings. The brevity leaves significant behavioral ambiguities.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple update operation, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, making the description the only source for return behavior. The description doesn't explain what the response looks like, which fields are updatable, or how it relates to set_payment_customization_activation. For a mutation tool with multiple related siblings, this is incomplete.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the high baseline applies. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to since the schema is self-explanatory.

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 action (update) and the resource (existing payment customization), using a specific verb. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from related siblings like create_payment_customization or set_payment_customization_activation, so it misses the sibling differentiation opportunity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (create, delete, or set activation). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing customization ID, or when partial updates are appropriate.

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