resume_paymentResume an unpaid hosted payment attempt after signed-in browser approval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| attempt_id | Yes | ||
| confirmation_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already show this is not read-only and not idempotent, but the description does not disclose material behavior such as whether resuming will charge/finalize the payment, what state changes occur, or what happens if called twice. The 'after signed-in browser approval' detail adds some context, but significant side-effect information is missing for a payment-affecting operation.
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 a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the necessary precondition. Every word contributes to the 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still omits essential invocation context: what confirmation_id is, how to obtain it, and how this tool differs from retry_payment. For a payment-related mutation, this is not enough for confident correct use.
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%, and the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It hints at 'attempt' matching attempt_id and 'browser approval' possibly relating to confirmation_id, but it never explicitly explains either parameter or their roles. This leaves the agent to guess.
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 ('Resume') and clearly identifies the resource ('unpaid hosted payment attempt') plus a precondition ('after signed-in browser approval'). It is clear and not a tautology, though it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the sibling retry_payment.
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 phrase 'after signed-in browser approval' gives some contextual guidance about when the tool applies, but the description does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or direct the agent to an alternative such as retry_payment. Given those siblings, the selection guidance is only implied.
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.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource and action (cart, orders, tickets, picks, payments), so an agent can generally select the right one. The only notable ambiguity is resume_payment vs retry_payment, which both describe acting on an unpaid hosted payment attempt with nearly identical wording.
All 29 tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun (or verb_preposition_noun) pattern with standard verbs like get, list, create, close, remove, and set. There are no mixed conventions or vague generic names.
At 29 tools this is a heavy surface, but the broad e-commerce scope (catalog, cart, checkout, payment, orders, support, rewards) justifies most of them. A few payment-attempt tools could be consolidated, so it sits at the overbuilt rather than absurdly bloated end.
The set covers the main customer journey from browsing/searching sarees through cart, checkout, payment status, orders, and post-purchase support. Minor gaps exist—for example, no explicit apply_coupon/redeem_points tool or standalone catalogue listing—but agents can work around them with validate_coupon, checkout summary, and search.