paymentSessions.update

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

No annotations are provided, placing full disclosure burden on the description. It fails to mention behavioral traits such as whether updates trigger new authorizations, if amount changes require re-verification, or whether manual capture flows can be switched to automatic mid-session. No mutation warnings or prerequisites are documented.

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 single sentence is grammatically complete and contains no redundant words. However, extreme brevity results in under-specification rather than elegant conciseness. The structure is front-loaded but insufficiently dense for a 5-parameter mutation tool.

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?

Given a 5-parameter mutation operation with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is materially incomplete. It omits updatable field names, validation constraints (e.g., exclusiveMinimum for amount), and operational constraints that would be necessary for correct invocation.

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% (5 undocumented parameters: id, amount, captureFlow, customerEmail, metadata). The description compensates by mentioning zero parameters. Critical semantics like 'captureFlow' enum values (Automatic vs Manual), 'metadata' key-value restrictions, or that 'id' is the session identifier are entirely absent.

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?

Provides basic verb ('Update') and resource ('Ryft payment session'), establishing the core operation. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like capture, refund, void, or continuePayment, which all modify payment session state in different ways. It also omits which specific fields can be updated (amount, captureFlow, customerEmail, metadata).

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?

Contains no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as paymentSessions.capture, refund, or void. For a payment platform with multiple session-modifying operations, the description should clarify that this modifies session parameters (like amount or metadata) before final capture, but it does not.

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