Update a payment account's name and configure automatic balance refill settings for a user.
Update payment account settings: name and automatic balance refill
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | The user ID | |
| payment_account_name | No | New name of the payment account | |
| auto_money_refill_amount | No | Automatic refill amount in USD | |
| auto_money_refill_enabled | No | Enable or disable automatic balance refill |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not explain whether this is a partial update, what happens to omitted fields, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what the response contains. It identifies the editable fields but offers little operational context for a mutation tool.
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?
It is a single efficient sentence with the core update scope front-loaded and no wasted wording. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity contributes to the missing behavioral detail elsewhere.
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 mutation tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It names the editable fields but omits permissions, partial-update semantics, side effects, and response behavior needed to call the tool safely and correctly.
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 the schema already documents all four parameters with clear meanings. The description reinforces that payment_account_name and the automatic refill settings are the update targets, but it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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 a specific verb (Update) and resource (payment account settings) and names the two configurable fields, name and automatic balance refill. This distinguishes it from sibling read/remove tools such as payment_account_get_by_user and payment_account_remove, though it does not explicitly contrast with any update-adjacent alternative.
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?
It says what can be updated but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The mutation context is only implied by the verb 'Update'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.