wafle_gateways_update

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

Annotations include idempotentHint: true, but the description adds important context: setting a gateway inactive will reject new charges while not affecting in-flight transactions. This warns about destructive consequences beyond what annotations convey. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage and a caveat. Every sentence earns its place, no redundancy, and it is well-structured.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core use cases and a destructive edge case, but lacks details on other parameters, return value, and error handling. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 has 6 parameters with zero descriptions. The description explains `creds` and `active`, which is helpful, but leaves `meta`, `name`, `description`, and `gateway_id` without explanation. `meta` is particularly ambiguous. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate more thoroughly for all parameters.

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 states 'Patch an existing gateway' – a specific verb and resource. It also gives concrete use cases (rotating credentials, toggling active), making the purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling gateway tools, but the verb 'patch' implies modification compared to create/delete/list/test.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'Use to rotate credentials (creds) or toggle active.' This gives clear context and intended scenarios. It doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives, but the use cases are specific enough for an agent to decide.

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