passgage_update_payroll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It merely states 'update' without explaining behavioral traits such as partial vs. full replacement, handling of unspecified fields in the 'data' object, required permissions, or return format. For a mutation tool, this lacks necessary transparency.

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, efficient sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it could include more detail without becoming verbose.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a nested 'data' object with free-form properties. The description does not explain update semantics (e.g., partial update, required fields within data, error cases) or what the response contains. This is a typical CRUD update, but it lacks sufficient context for reliable autonomous use.

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 input schema has 100% coverage: id and data are described with their types and purposes. The description adds no extra meaning. The 'data' object allows additionalProperties, which could benefit from elaboration, but since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update an existing payroll' uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('payroll'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like create_payroll, delete_payroll, and get_payroll. It is unambiguous and directly states the tool's action.

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 usage for modifying an existing payroll, and sibling tool names (create_payroll, delete_payroll) provide some context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., existing payroll ID), and no mention of what happens if the payroll does not exist.

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