open_payment_link_wizardOpens the payment-link wizard — a graphical form pre-filled with the cobro, for the owner to review and confirm before any money moves. Side-effect-free (no charge).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | Line items (productId + quantity). | |
| customerId | No | Customer ID (optional). | |
| description | Yes | Cobro description (e.g. '3 alfajores'). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining this is a graphical form pre-filled with the cobro and explicitly states 'Side-effect-free (no charge),' which goes beyond the structured annotations.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the key action and object. No redundant or filler content; every phrase adds necessary meaning.
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 UI-navigation tool with full schema coverage and robust annotations, the description sufficiently communicates purpose, behavior, and side-effect-free nature. No output schema is expected for such a tool, and the complexity is low.
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?
The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including example for 'description'. The description doesn't need to add parameter-level details; it merely references the cobro, which is a domain concept. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 uses a specific verb ('Opens') and resource ('payment-link wizard'), clearly stating what the tool does. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_tracked_payment_link by noting the wizard is for review/confirmation before any money moves.
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 context is clear: this is a preview/review step for the owner to confirm before any charge occurs. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the side-effect-free framing and the word 'before' imply it should not be used when the goal is to directly execute a payment.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as caja_registrar_movimiento vs register_movement, get_payment_intent_status vs open_cobro_status, and adjust_stock vs stock_load. The distinctions are not immediately clear from names/descriptions, causing a high risk of misselection.
Naming is inconsistent: mixes English and Spanish (caja_*, emit_invoice, send_whatsapp_*), and uses different patterns (open_*, get_*, query_*, list_*, etc.). Some names like stock_load and bulk_price_update don't follow a clear verb_noun convention.
50 tools is excessive for most contexts, even for a broad ERP-like domain. Many are UI widgets (open_*) that add clutter and could be consolidated, making the tool set feel heavy and harder to navigate.
The tool set covers many core business functions (products, suppliers, customers, sales, invoicing, shipping, cash register, payments, integrations). However, there are noticeable gaps: purchase requests have only create (no list/update/delete), shipments cannot be updated/cancelled, and sales lack direct update/query by ID.