delete_payment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as cascading effects, permissions, or reversibility. It merely repeats the action without enriching the agent's understanding beyond the 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?

The description is a single short sentence, which is terse and avoids fluff. However, it is under-specified and lacks any supporting details. While it is not verbose, its brevity borders on underspecification rather than effective conciseness.

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?

Although the tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), the surrounding context includes numerous payment-related tools, especially delete_invoice_payment, delete_outgoing_payment, and cancel_payment. The description fails to disambiguate or provide necessary context for correct selection and invocation, making it incomplete for the full operational context.

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 has one required parameter 'payment_id' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain what payment_id refers to, its expected format, or how to obtain it. Since the description must compensate for the lack of schema documentation but does not, it fails this dimension.

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 'Delete a payment' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (payment), which is sufficient for basic purpose. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like delete_invoice_payment, delete_outgoing_payment, or cancel_payment, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool compared to related tools like delete_invoice_payment, delete_outgoing_payment, or cancel_payment. No prerequisites, side effects, or alternative recommendations are mentioned. The description provides no usage context.

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