upsert_taxing_scheme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a great deal: immediate write semantics, HIGH RISK, and that it bypasses the INFLOW_ENABLE_SAFE_WRITES safeguard. What it does not cover is reversibility or what an update does to unspecified fields, which is minor given the schema's additionalProperties:false.

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 risk warning and the redirect are front-loaded in a bracketed banner, followed by one short purpose clause. Nothing is wasted and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the critical missing context: it is a legacy high-risk write and there is a safer replacement. Return-value behavior is unspecified, but that is a small gap given how decisively the tool is routed away from.

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 each parameter (id, name, isDefault) is already documented, including that id is required for updates. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource ('Create or update a taxing scheme') and explicitly names the sibling it should be replaced by (set_taxing_scheme). An agent can distinguish it from the dozens of other upsert_* siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit when-not guidance: 'Use set_taxing_scheme instead' routes the agent away from this tool, and the LEGACY tag explains why. This is exactly the alternative-naming the dimension rewards.

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