intl_beneficiary_update

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the SCA requirement, default polling, fallback to a pending response, and continuation tools. However, it does not detail update behavior (e.g., full vs partial update) or response structure.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose concisely, and the second explains the key behavioral trait (SCA flow). No unnecessary words; front-loaded.

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 complexity of SCA and polling, the description covers the main flow and points to other tools for continuation. However, it lacks details on the success response and the exact structure of the pending response, which would help the agent handle all outcomes.

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?

All 4 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds context by explaining the wait parameter's polling behavior and the sca_session_token's role, which go beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 'Update an international beneficiary,' specifying the verb and resource. The name 'intl_beneficiary_update' distinguishes it from domestic 'beneficiary_update' and sibling tools like 'intl_beneficiary_add'.

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 explains the SCA polling behavior but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives like 'beneficiary_update' or when not to use it. Usage is implied by the name and context, but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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