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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description goes further by marking this as a WRITE, disclosing that invoice paid/due totals change, and explaining the unrealized/realized lifecycle for offline payments. It does not say whether a payment can be edited or removed afterward, leaving part of the mutation risk unstated.

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?

Three short sentences, led by an all-caps WRITE prefix that flags the mutation before anything else. Every sentence carries distinct information (mutation, side effect, lifecycle, endpoint) with no filler.

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 5-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and post-state well. It omits any hint about the response (e.g. whether the created payment is returned) and failure modes, which are the remaining gaps.

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 100%, so every parameter including the hash_key-vs-numeric-id distinction and the payment_method enum is already documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (enter a payment), the resource (invoice payment), and the concrete effect (changes paid and due totals), plus the underlying endpoint. An agent can distinguish it from hiveage_mark_payment_realized and hiveage_list_payments without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context — recording a payment received on an invoice — and notes that offline methods (cash, check, bank_transfer) are saved unrealized, which implies the follow-up step via hiveage_mark_payment_realized. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly or stating exclusions, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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