subscriptions.update

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 but offers none. It does not clarify whether updates are partial (PATCH-like) or full replacement, whether the operation is idempotent, what validation occurs, or what happens to active payment sessions when subscription metadata changes.

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?

While brief at four words, the single sentence fails to earn its place by providing actionable information beyond the tool name. It is under-specified rather than efficiently structured; front-loading critical constraints or behavioral notes would better serve agent selection despite the brevity.

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 nested object parameters (metadata), zero schema documentation, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It should explain updatable fields, validation rules, and side effects given the complexity implied by the input schema.

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%, yet the description fails to compensate by explaining the three parameters (id, description, metadata). It does not indicate that 'description' is a human-readable label, that 'metadata' accepts arbitrary key-value pairs, or that 'id' is the subscription identifier—leaving the agent to infer semantics from property names alone.

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 'Update a Ryft subscription' is a tautology that restates the tool name (subscriptions.update) with minimal added context. While it identifies the resource type (Ryft subscription), it fails to specify what aspects can be updated or distinguish from sibling operations like subscriptions.create or subscriptions.cancel.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as subscriptions.cancel (for termination) or subscriptions.create (for new subscriptions). The agent receives no signal about prerequisites (e.g., subscription state requirements) or when updates are permitted versus forbidden.

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