brc_update_cash_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the two-step confirm workflow but does not mention destructive nature, permissions required, or error handling beyond the confirmation step.

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?

Description consists of two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and the required workflow. Somewhat run-on but overall clear and to the point.

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 complexity (5 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description provides the key workflow but lacks details on how merged fields work, what the preview looks like, and error scenarios. 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds practical context for the confirmWrite parameter beyond the schema description, explaining the workflow. However, it does not add semantics for other parameters like id or companyName.

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 tool updates a BRC cash payment using merged fields. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like brc_update_cash_receipt, but the name itself is specific enough.

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?

Provides detailed guidance on the two-step confirmation process, including instruction to first call without confirmWrite to get a preview, then retry with confirmWrite only after explicit user confirmation. It also clarifies that passing preflight is not confirmation. However, it does not discuss when to use this tool versus other update or create tools.

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