create_payment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to disclose critical traits: whether this operation is idempotent, what happens if the orderId doesn't exist, whether it updates the order's balance/paid status, or what data is returned upon success. For a financial mutation tool, this lack of safety context is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant words. However, for a 4-parameter financial tool with no annotations, it is undersized—lacking front-loaded critical context about side effects or safety that would help an agent make informed invocation decisions.

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?

Given this is a financial creation tool with rich implications (linking to orders via orderId, affecting payment balances) but zero annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should explain the relationship to work orders, validation rules (e.g., amount constraints), or the effect on order status, none of which are present.

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%, with all four parameters (orderId, amount, method, notes) fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics (e.g., valid formats for method, constraints on amount), so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without additional compensation.

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 ('Record') and resource ('payment') and identifies the system ('Shopmonkey'). The verb 'Record' implicitly distinguishes this write operation from siblings 'get_payment' and 'list_payments'. However, it misses the opportunity to clarify that payments are applied to work orders (orderId parameter), which would strengthen scoping.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use get_payment first to check existing payments), nor any prerequisites such as requiring a valid orderId or whether the order must be in a specific state. The description is silent on usage context entirely.

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