Update Payee

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false correctly indicates this is a write operation, which aligns with the 'Update' action in the description. The description adds minimal context beyond annotations—it specifies the scope ('a payee's name') and notes '[1 API call]', but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the name update fails.

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 extremely concise—two short phrases with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, and the API call note is a useful efficiency hint 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's moderate complexity (a mutation operation with 3 parameters), no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on usage, error handling, or return values, which would help an agent use it 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 fully documents all three parameters (budget_id, payee_id, name) with their types, constraints, and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, making the baseline score appropriate.

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 the action ('Update') and resource ('a payee's name'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other update tools like update_category or update_transaction, which would require mentioning it's specifically for modifying payee names rather than other payee attributes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a payee_id from get_payee or list_payees), when not to use it, or how it differs from other update operations on the server.

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