update_payee

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears the burden. It discloses the max length for name and the exclude_fields behavior, but does not mention permissions, error handling, or side effects. The mutation is implicit.

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 well-organized with lines for each argument and a clear explanation of exclude_fields. It is concise but a bit verbose on exclude_fields, yet every sentence adds value.

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 description covers input parameters thoroughly. Since an output schema exists (not shown but noted), the lack of return value description is acceptable. It could mention prerequisites or side effects for completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: plan_id source, payee_id as identifier, name max length, and exclude_fields usage with all options.

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 'Update a payee.' with a verb and resource, and among siblings like get_payee and list_payees, it is distinct and unambiguous.

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 context for when to use, e.g., 'use list_plans to find available IDs', and explains the exclude_fields parameter behavior. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, but the guidance is clear.

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