update_beneficiary_email_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'updates and resends' but does not disclose whether updates overwrite fields, what happens if the request is not pending, or any side effects like rate limits or authentication requirements. Minimal behavioral context is provided.

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 a single sentence front-loaded with purpose, but it lacks important details. While concise, the brevity sacrifices clarity on parameters and behavior. It could be more structured without being verbose.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what fields can be updated, the required state (pending), return values, or error scenarios. The tool context (siblings) is not leveraged to clarify scope.

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 40% (only uuid and request_uuid have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter-level information, leaving three undocumented parameters (email, currency, bank_account_country) without semantic guidance. It fails to compensate for the schema gaps.

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 clearly states it updates and resends a pending beneficiary email request. The verb 'updates' and noun 'email request' indicate the action and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_beneficiary_email_request or delete_beneficiary_email_request, though the purpose is distinct by context.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for updating an existing pending request, but does not specify prerequisites, when-not to use, or mention of other tools like create_beneficiary_email_request for new requests.

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