brc_update_accrual

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It discloses that only parent accruals are updated (child accruals not exposed), and the confirmWrite parameter must be set only after user confirmation. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwrite behavior, idempotency) or permission requirements. Still, it provides key behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, providing retrieval prerequisite, and warning about confirmWrite. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 description covers the update workflow, prerequisites, and a critical constraint (confirmWrite). However, since there is no output schema, the description could mention what the tool returns (e.g., success status, updated accrual). Given the complexity (11 parameters) and lack of output schema, it is mostly complete but missing return value hints.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the confirmWrite parameter's usage policy ('do not call with confirmWrite=true until user confirms') and implying the timestamp parameter must come from brc_get_accrual. This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 it updates an existing parent Accrual by id, specifying 'parent' to distinguish from child accruals. It uses a specific verb ('updates') and resource ('parent Accrual by id'), and differentiates from siblings like brc_create_accrual and brc_delete_accrual by focusing on update behavior.

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 explicit guidance: use brc_get_accrual first to retrieve the current accrual and timestamp, and do not call with confirmWrite=true until the user has explicitly confirmed. This clearly states when to use the tool and cautions against misuse, covering prerequisites and user confirmation flow.

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