Update subscription

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

The 'WRITE:' prefix only restates readOnlyHint=false that annotations already declare. It says nothing beyond annotations about partial-vs-full update semantics, whether unlisted fields are wiped, whether validation is a prerequisite, or the effect of openWorldHint=true — all real risks for a mutation with a free-form payload.

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?

Two short sentences, mutation nature front-loaded, no filler. The terseness edges toward under-specification rather than verbosity, but nothing is wasted.

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?

A destructive-adjacent mutation of a nested, open-world object with no output schema demands more: which fields are mutable, how validation errors surface, and the relation to the validate/upgrade siblings. Given that complexity, the two-sentence description leaves substantial gaps.

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?

Although schema coverage is nominally 100%, the schema for the single parameter is an unconstrained object with additionalProperties {} and only the phrase 'Subscription update payload'. The description genuinely adds that accountId is expected and that remaining keys are field changes, which is more than the schema conveys, but no field names or formats are given.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('UpdateSubscription') and hints at payload shape (accountId plus field changes), which separates it from read siblings like get_subscription and from create_subscription. It stops short of differentiating it from the many adjacent mutation tools (execute_subscription_upgrade, configure_subscription_renew), so it is clear but not fully sibling-aware.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus validate_subscription_fields, execute_subscription_upgrade, configure_subscription_renew, or reset_default_renew_values — all of which touch the same object. The agent is left to infer that this is the generic field-mutation path.

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