update_payment_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update a payment link (activate/deactivate)' without explaining side effects, idempotency, permissions, behavior for missing IDs, or whether metadata replaces or merges. This is insufficient 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and to the point, efficiently conveying the core action.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, a nested metadata object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is minimal, leaving out return behavior, error conditions, and permissions. While the schema covers parameter meanings, the behavioral context is too sparse for a complete understanding.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the 3 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's parenthetical adds minor context about the 'active' parameter but does not clarify metadata merge/replace behavior or add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Update a payment link (activate/deactivate)' clearly states the verb and resource, with the parenthetical specifying the primary mutation actions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_payment_link, create_payment_link, and list_payment_links.

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?

The description implies usage for updating existing payment links, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus creating or listing. It offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and siblings.

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