Put Instances Customers Bank Accounts Offramp Wallets By Id

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

The annotations already disclose non-readonly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds no further context beyond 'Update.' It does not explain what fields are modified, whether the update is partial or full, or what happens to omitted fields, though it does not contradict the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. For a six-parameter update tool with a nested request body, a three-word phrase does not earn its place as sufficient documentation.

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 an update operation with six parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It does not clarify update semantics, required scoping identifiers, or how the partner fee and idempotency fields should be used.

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 only 33%, and the description provides no parameter semantics at all. Required identifiers such as id, instance_id, and bank_account_id are undocumented in both the description and parts of the schema, while nested requestBody and Idempotency-Key behavior are left entirely to 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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name/title: 'Update Offramp Wallet.' It identifies a mutation on an offramp wallet, but gives no additional specificity about what is being updated or how this differs from sibling endpoints such as Post...OfframpWallets or Get...OfframpWalletsById.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer from the HTTP verb and sibling names that this is the update-by-id endpoint rather than create/list/get.

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