updatePayee

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it fails to carry it. "Update" is the only behavioral signal, and it comes from the tool name itself; the description does not state whether the update is a merge or replace, whether it is reversible, what response to expect, or what happens to omitted fields.

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 short sentence with no redundancy, which is superficially concise. But this is under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness — it contains no information beyond the tool name and fails to earn its place as a definition.

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 mutating tool with a nested object parameter, an output schema, and zero annotations, this description is drastically incomplete. It neither explains the update semantics nor gives the agent any context about behavior, edge cases, or the response, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema and name.

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 schema already documents all parameters (plan_id with last-used/default semantics, payee_id, and the nested payee.name), so the parameter burden is mostly carried by the schema at 67% coverage. However, the description adds zero parameter-level meaning and does not compensate for the remaining gaps, such as explaining that only the name field is editable or how the nested payee object behaves.

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?

"Update a payee" is a direct restatement of the tool name updatePayee with no added specificity. It states verb+resource but does not clarify what aspects of a payee can change (e.g., only the name, per the schema) or how this differs from createPayee, making it functionally a tautology.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as createPayee, getPayees, or getPayeeById. There is no indication of prerequisites (e.g., needing plan_id resolution) or exclusions, so the agent gets zero routing help.

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