Settings: update creditor

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds '🟡 WRITE · updates data' and 'Modifies... in place', which aligns but doesn't provide additional behavioral context like authorization needs or side effects.

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 front-loaded with key info (WRITE label, verb, resource). However, the 'updates data' phrase is redundant with the WRITE label. Overall efficient.

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?

For a tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks information about return values, confirmation of changes, or what happens after a successful update. This leaves the agent underinformed.

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 detailed parameter descriptions. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the endpoint.

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 'update' and the resource 'creditor account', and distinguishes it from add/get siblings by specifying 'Modifies existing master data in place'.

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?

Minimal guidance: it says 'Modifies existing master data in place' implying it's for existing creditors, but no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives compared to sibling tools like settings_add_creditor.

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