update_merchant

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

Annotations are entirely absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a notable behavioral trait: the rename is 'global', meaning it affects the merchant system-wide. However, it does not explain side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or how the recurring stream settings interact with existing transactions. While the global scope is meaningful, the description is sparse on deeper behavioral implications.

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 a single, tightly constructed sentence that front-loads the primary action and scope. Every word contributes: 'globally' signals impact, and the parenthetical lists the key updatable fields. No fluff or redundant phrasing.

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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately thin. It provides a high-level purpose but does not explain how parameters like is_recurring and is_active interact, what the call returns, or any side effects. Given the tool's complexity, the description covers the essential selection criteria but leaves room for more operational detail.

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% – every parameter has a description. The tool description adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely mentions 'frequency, amount, base date' which are identical parameter names. According to the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully describes the parameters, and the description does not elevate this.

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's function with specific verbs ('Rename', 'update') and identifies the exact resources affected ('merchant globally', 'recurring stream settings'). It distinguishes itself from read-only sibling tools like get_merchant and from update_transaction by focusing exclusively on merchant-level updates.

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 implies the primary use cases (renaming a merchant or adjusting recurring stream settings) but provides no explicit guidance on when to avoid this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. The 'globally' hint gives some context, but there is no mention of using get_merchant for reading or when not to update. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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