brc_update_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully describes the behavioral traits: the two-step confirmation, the need to show a draft, and that preflight is not confirmation. It implies mutation but does not cover permissions or rate limits, which is acceptable given the tool's nature.

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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence stating purpose followed by detailed workflow instructions. Every sentence is necessary and efficiently communicates critical usage steps.

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 (5 parameters, required fields, nested objects) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the confirmation workflow and parameter semantics. It does not detail return values, but the workflow mentions expected responses like confirmation_required and payload preview.

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 value by explaining the confirmWrite parameter's workflow context (preflight vs actual confirmation). It also mentions 'merged fields,' aiding understanding of updates/payload parameters.

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 payment using merged fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling update tools (e.g., brc_update_cash_payment) by specifying 'BRC payment' and detailing a unique two-step confirmation workflow.

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 clear when-to-use guidance for the confirmation workflow: first call without confirmWrite, show draft, then retry with confirmWrite after user confirmation. It does not explicitly contrast with other update tools but the name and context imply its use for BRC payments.

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