Settings: update creditor

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it is a write operation ("WRITE · updates data"), modifies existing master data in place, and overwrites the fields sent. It also warns to read the current record before partial updates. Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint, so the description adds useful overwrite semantics without contradicting annotations.

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 short and mostly focused, with the core purpose and key behavioral warning front-loaded. There is minor redundancy between the title, bold header, and first sentence, but overall the structure is efficient and scannable.

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 full schema coverage and existing annotations, the description includes the crucial operational context: which fields can be updated, the overwrite behavior, the need to read first for partial changes, and the endpoint. It does not explain validation rules, but those are captured in the schema, and an output schema exists, so nothing essential is missing.

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 already fully documents all 13 parameters with their individual meanings and validations. The description adds only a high-level grouping (address, bank details, payment terms) and does not materially enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: "Update a creditor account" and further clarifies the scope with "change a supplier's address, bank details or payment terms." This distinguishes it from sibling tools like creditors_create and creditors_list through the explicit focus on modifying existing creditor data.

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 context on when to use the tool (to change supplier address, bank details, or payment terms) and advises reading the current record with creditors_list first for partial changes. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like creditors_create, but the usage intent is clear.

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