paymentMethods.update

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Only indicates mutation occurs ('Update'). Fails to clarify if billingAddress replaces the entire object or merges fields, doesn't describe error handling for invalid IDs, idempotency, or side effects. No mention of required fields within the nested billingAddress object.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, given the high complexity (nested object with 12+ fields) and zero schema documentation, this brevity represents under-specification rather than optimal 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?

Inadequate for the tool's complexity. With no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, no annotations, and a deeply nested billingAddress structure with ambiguous field names, the minimal description leaves critical gaps in understanding required fields and parameter relationships.

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, description fails to compensate adequately. Mentions 'billing address' contextually but doesn't explain the 'id' parameter (presumably payment method ID), nor clarifies the confusing schema duplication (firstLine vs lineOne, secondLine vs lineTwo). Doesn't explain the nested required fields (city, postalCode, country).

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?

Clear verb ('Update') and resource ('payment method billing address') identifies the operation precisely. Specifies 'Ryft' as the context/brand, though this is unexplained. Distinguishes from sibling operations like paymentMethods.delete/get by specifying the update operation and billing address scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., accounts.update, customers.update), nor prerequisites like needing the payment method ID from paymentMethods.get or customers.listPaymentMethods. No workflow context provided.

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