update_payment_terms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It merely states the action 'update existing payment terms' without disclosing whether missing fields are unaffected, whether it's a partial update, error behavior, or dependency on the id. This ambiguity is significant for a mutation tool.

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, direct sentence with no redundant words, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately concise for a simple update tool.

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?

While the core purpose is clear, the description omits essential behavioral context: it doesn't state whether update is partial (other fields remain unchanged) or full replacement, nor what the response contains. For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is a notable gap.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for id, name, dueInDays, and discountPercentage, so the description adds no parameter-level detail. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'update' and the resource 'payment terms', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like create_payment_terms, get_payment_terms, and delete_payment_terms. The word 'existing' clarifies that it modifies only already-created payment terms.

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?

'Existing' implies this is for modifying previously created payment terms, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus create/get/delete is provided. The description does not mention any alternatives or prerequisites.

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