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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the destructiveHint annotation: the record stays, the number stays, amounts become zero, the operation cannot be undone, and explicit user confirmation is required. These details tell the agent exactly what happens and what safeguards must precede invocation.

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 tightly written sentences front-load the core action and effect, then add the two critical warnings. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy.

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 destructive single-entity action with fully documented parameters and a destructiveHint annotation, the description captures the effect, irreversibility, and confirmation requirement. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents id, company, and confirm. The description reinforces the confirm requirement, but does not need to add new parameter-level semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Void a payment in QuickBooks Online') and clarifies the exact behavioral distinction: the record and its number are kept while amounts are zeroed. This implicitly differentiates void_payment from delete_payment and from create/update payment siblings.

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?

Describes clear operational context: the action is irreversible and requires explicit user confirmation, which tells the agent to gate the call on user approval. It does not explicitly name alternatives like delete_payment or void_invoice, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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