generate_plan_checkout_linkValidate a selected Pro or Platinum price and generate an environment-appropriate Nas.com checkout link for either an existing community or a new onboarding session. This does not start payment or create a subscription.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| priceId | Yes | ||
| planType | Yes | ||
| communityId | No | ||
| discountCode | No | ||
| referralCode | No | ||
| discountCodeDecision | No | ||
| onboardingSessionObjectId | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description's job is lighter. It adds behavioral context: validates a selected price, generates an environment-appropriate link, and explicitly states no side-effects on payment or subscription. This sufficiently extends transparency without contradiction.
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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary action, and includes crucial context without wasted words. Every phrase adds value.
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?
Despite clear purpose, the description lacks crucial details: what the generated checkout link format is, what constitutes a valid price, possible error cases (e.g., invalid price, missing community/onboarding), and whether the link is a one-time use. With no output schema, these omissions leave the agent poorly informed about the tool's full behavior.
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, the description must compensate. It explains planType (Pro/Platinum) and the context for communityId vs onboardingSessionObjectId (existing community vs new onboarding). However, it does not explain priceId, discountCode, referralCode, or discountCodeDecision, leaving key parameters ambiguous.
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 clearly states the tool validates a Pro or Platinum price and generates a checkout link for an existing community or new onboarding session. It explicitly distinguishes from payment/subscription tools by stating it does not start payment or create a subscription, which differentiates it from siblings like confirm_plan_payment or change_plan.
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?
The description specifies the tool is for generating a checkout link before payment, and clarifies it does not start payment or create a subscription, implying when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for payment/subscription actions, missing the opportunity to guide agent selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools are semantically identical, distinguished only by 'business' vs 'community' prefixes, and descriptions explicitly state they are interchangeable. This creates ambiguity for agent selection. Examples include add_business_admins/add_community_admins and get_business/get_community.
Tools generally follow a verb_noun pattern, but the inconsistent use of 'business' vs 'community' for the same entities breaks the pattern. While individual naming is clear, the overall set lacks uniformity.
With 423 tools, the server is massively over-scoped. The high count is driven by redundant 'business' and 'community' variants and many niche operations. A more focused surface would be far more manageable.
The tool set covers a broad range of features including CRUD operations for multiple product types, analytics, payments, messaging, and integrations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., missing update for some entity types), but overall domain coverage is strong.