paywall_update_route

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two genuinely actionable traits: an auth requirement (PAYWALL_API_KEY) and propagation latency (changes go live in ~20s). It stops short of saying what happens to fields that are omitted in a partial update, or whether the change is reversible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: the tool family tag, the operation, examples of what changes, the live-propagation caveat, and the auth prerequisite. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, and propagation timing well. The remaining gap is PATCH semantics — whether omitted fields are left untouched or cleared — which an agent needs before performing a partial update.

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 every parameter (id, path, asset, payTo, price, method, network, description, upstreamUrl) is already documented in the schema. The description only names two of the updatable fields as examples and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource ("Partial update of a route") and gives concrete examples of what can change (price, payout wallet). It implicitly separates itself from paywall_create_route/paywall_delete_route/paywall_list_routes via the update semantics, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied — modify an existing route identified by id — and the prerequisite (needs PAYWALL_API_KEY) is stated, which is useful. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to a sibling tool for related operations.

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