brc_update_prepayment

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively conveys behavioral traits such as the required two-step workflow (get first, then update with timestamp) and the confirmWrite parameter acting as a confirmation safeguard. However, it could be more explicit about the permanence of the update or lack of rollback, but the current disclosure is adequate.

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 only three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, providing the prerequisite, and giving a critical warning. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no redundant or extraneous information.

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 essential workflow (get before update) and the confirmation step, which is critical for safe usage. While it does not describe the output or return value, the absence of an output schema reduces that expectation. For a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete to guide correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all 11 parameters, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds value by explaining the purpose of the 'timestamp' parameter (from brc_get_prepayment) and the 'confirmWrite' parameter (user confirmation required), which enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 verb 'Updates', the resource 'existing parent Prepayment', and the method 'by id'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like brc_create_prepayment and brc_get_prepayment by specifying it's an update operation and clarifying that child prepayments are not exposed.

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 explicitly instructs users to first call brc_get_prepayment to retrieve the current prepayment and timestamp before using this tool. It also warns against setting confirmWrite=true until the user has reviewed and explicitly confirmed the update, providing clear guidance on when and how to use the tool appropriately.

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