record_invoice_payment

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description correctly states it creates a payment (a write operation). However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., updating invoice balance or status), auth requirements, or rate limits. With annotations present, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It concisely conveys the core action and object.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return value, side effects on related entities (e.g., invoice status), or any post-creation behavior. Given the complexity and lack of output schema, more contextual detail is warranted.

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%, meaning all 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what's already in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 'Creates new payment for specified invoice' uses a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('payment for specified invoice'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_invoice_payment', 'delete_invoice_payment', and 'list_invoice_payments'.

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 description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to update vs. create a payment, or prerequisites like invoice existence/status). Usage is implied by the name and description, but no exclusions or context are given.

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