Payment Providers Update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the OAuth scope required (write_payments), the concrete endpoint, and the API version (2025-03), which an agent needs before attempting the call. It stops short of explaining partial-vs-full update semantics for the 13 optional fields, which is the main remaining behavioral unknown.

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?

Four short lines with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and followed by endpoint, scope and version. Every line is scannable and earns its place.

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 13-parameter mutation with nested objects and no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing about partial-update behavior (are omitted fields preserved or cleared?) and what the response contains. The auth scope and endpoint are covered, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 all 13 parameters including id, enabled, features, logo_urls and additional_fields are already documented in the schema. The description adds no semantics of its own about which fields are mutable or how additional_fields is merged, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update a payment provider") plus the underlying HTTP operation PUT /payment_providers/{id}, which pins down exactly which object family is mutated among the many siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from tiendanube_payment_providers_get/create/delete, but the verb makes the distinction obvious without opening the 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?

Usage is only implied by the verb "Update"; there is no statement of when to prefer this over payment_providers_create or when to fall back to get first. The "Required scope: write_payments" line gives a genuine auth prerequisite, which is the only real usage condition supplied.

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