Recurring Update Recurring Stream

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it 'may create or update Monarch data', which is vague and does not clarify specific side effects, data scope, or permissions needed. More detail is required.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the action. However, the phrase 'may create or update' is somewhat redundant and could be more precise. Still efficient overall.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and limited annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what a recurring stream is, which parameters are most important, or the outcome of the update. More context is needed for effective tool use.

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?

The description does not explain any parameters. Schema coverage is only 25% (fields and output_mode have descriptions). The description fails to add meaning for the remaining six parameters, leaving the agent without clarity on how to use them.

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 states 'Update recurring stream' which is a clear verb+resource, but it adds 'may create or update Monarch data' which blurs the distinction with the sibling create tool. It does not differentiate from recurring_create_recurring_stream.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus creating or removing recurring streams. Sibling tools exist for creation and removal, but the description offers no contextual usage advice.

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