Rename a payee

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds real non-obvious context on top: renaming is the sole exposed payee edit, it does not merge records, and other payee attributes are unreachable — useful scope disclosure that the annotations cannot express. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or what happens on an id that does not exist.

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?

Three short sentences, all front-loaded: what it does, then the scope limitation, then the routing to the sibling tool. No sentence is filler and none restates the title verbatim without adding 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 annotations covering safety/idempotency and a fully described two-parameter schema, the description supplies the remaining decision-relevant facts (non-merging behavior, sibling routing, unreachable fields). No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but a brief note on duplicate-name or missing-id behavior would close the last gap.

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% with only two parameters, both documented ('Id of the payee to rename.', 'The new name.'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no naming-format, uniqueness, or collision semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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+resource ('Rename a payee') and immediately scopes it against siblings: it is the only edit the public API exposes for payees, and it does not merge. An agent can distinguish it from create_payee, merge_payees, and list_payees without opening any 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?

Explicitly names the alternative for the adjacent use case ('to combine two payees, use `merge_payees`') and states an exclusion (favorite/category-learning flags are not reachable here). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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