put_service_lines_by_service_line_number_data_recurring

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

Annotations already indicate it's not read-only or destructive. The description adds the required permission and the prerequisite (top-up plan), which are useful behavioral constraints. However, it does not disclose additional traits like whether the operation overrides existing recurring blocks or how it interacts with billing cycles.

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 extremely concise, using two brief segments to convey the action, permission, prerequisite, and HTTP method/URL. Every part earns its place with no redundant information.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basics (permission, prerequisite) but lacks explanation of behavioral nuances like how recurring data blocks work, override behavior, or billing cycle implications. It is adequate but not complete for a complex configuration tool.

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 all parameters are described in the schema. The description does not add further semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., mutual exclusivity of dataPoolId and recurringDataBlocks is only in schema). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Set recurring data blocks') and the resource ('on service line'). It also includes required permission and prerequisite (top up plan), giving a clear purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like top-up or opt-in operations.

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 provides context on when to use (set recurring blocks) and includes prerequisites (permission, top-up plan), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with alternatives (e.g., one-time top-up via post_service_lines_by_service_line_number_data_top_up). It offers implied usage guidance only.

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