Update Deposit

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining PATCH semantics and partial update behavior. Annotations provide idempotentHint: true and destructiveHint: false, and the description aligns and expands on these, though it does not mention authorization or side effects.

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 concise with two sentences plus an example, and a Spanish translation. The example is useful but slightly lengthens the text. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the key 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?

Given the complexity (11 parameters, simple update) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential update behavior. It lacks details on error conditions or permissions, but for a straightforward tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description only adds a concrete example (id='abc123', amount=750, notes='...'), which is helpful but does not significantly enhance semantic understanding over the schema.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'deposit', and specifies 'using PATCH semantics' and 'Only the provided fields will be changed'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_deposit, delete_deposit, and get_deposit, providing a precise purpose.

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 basic update operation and partial update behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., apply_deposit, refund_deposit) or when not to use it. No prerequisites or context are provided.

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