payments_update_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation ('Update') but does not state whether the update is partial or full, which permissions are needed, whether changes are irreversible, or what happens to omitted fields. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating tool.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 13 parameters and no other context, so its brevity borders on inadequacy rather than effective conciseness.

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, no output schema, 13 parameters, and 0% schema description coverage, this one-line description is far from complete. It omits required-field semantics, update behavior, return value, and any guidance on how parameters interact. The agent has almost nothing to work with beyond the schema's bare names.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description mentions none of the 13 parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the raw input schema, leaving the agent to guess what each of the various properties represents or how they relate to updating a payment.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Update an existing payment record.' It distinguishes itself from payments_create_payment by emphasizing 'existing,' and from unrelated siblings. It lacks explicit mention of which fields can be changed, but the core purpose is 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like payments_create_payment, payments_delete_payment, or payments_update_prescription. The word 'existing' implies it is not for creating new records, but no explicit usage context or exclusions are provided.

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