payments_record_order_payment

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

The description 'Record Order Payment' essentially repeats the tool name and adds no behavioral detail beyond what annotations already convey (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It does not clarify side effects like updating order status, creating a transaction entry, or whether it is idempotent. The annotations provide safety info, but the description contributes nothing extra, so it fails to inform the agent about what actually happens.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single phrase with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and to the point, which is good for agent readability. However, it lacks any structural elements like examples or conditional clarifications, but given its simplicity, the conciseness is acceptable.

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?

This is a complex tool with 10 parameters, including nested objects (card, cheque) and enums, yet the description provides no contextual guidance on how to compose these parameters or what the tool returns. With no output schema defined, the agent is left to infer the result. The description fails to cover essential details like which parameters are required, how partial payments are handled, or what a successful call returns, making it insufficiently complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 10 parameters, so each parameter is already documented with types and enums (e.g., mode enum with cash/card/cheque/bank_transfer/other). The description 'Record Order Payment' adds no additional meaning to parameters. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not hinder but also does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Record Order Payment' clearly states a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('Order Payment') that matches the tool name. It is unambiguous about the action, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like payments_create_order_fulfillment or payments_list_orders, though those are distinct operations. The phrase is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 versus alternatives. The description does not mention any preconditions, when not to use it, or how it fits into the payment workflow. An agent has no context about whether this is the right tool for a given scenario, such as partial payments or invoice payments.

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