mf_update_payment_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '更新します' (updates) implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is a destructive change, rate limits, or what happens when payment status is changed. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's function and front-loads the essential information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what happens when payment status is updated, potential side effects, or error conditions. Given the complexity of updating payment status (which likely has business logic implications), the description should provide more context about the operation's behavior and consequences.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema (billing_id and payment_status with enum values). The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('更新します' - updates) and resource ('請求書の入金状態' - invoice payment status), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'mf_update_billing' or 'mf_update_quote', which might also update invoice-related data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that might handle invoice updates (mf_update_billing, mf_convert_quote_to_billing), but the description doesn't explain when this specific payment status update tool is appropriate versus those other options.

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