Rename payee

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the risk profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful blast-radius context that annotations cannot convey: the rename propagates to every transaction with that payee. It stops short of saying whether the rename is reversible or what permissions are needed, but the key behavioral consequence is disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action first and the side effect second. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The one remaining gap is the absence of any guidance on prerequisites or error conditions, though for a two-parameter rename the description is otherwise sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so payee_id and name are fully documented in the schema, including the 500-character limit. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying that name is the field reflected in transactions, 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?

A specific verb ('Rename') and resource ('payee') stated up front, cleanly separated from siblings like create_payee, list_payees, and find_payee. The second sentence clarifies the scope of the operation, so an agent knows exactly what changes.

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 never says when to use this versus create_payee or find_payee, nor does it state preconditions (does the payee need to exist, does it require an ID first?). The propagation note hints at consequences but gives no decision guidance.

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