Create an accounts payable bill payment in KikoBooks by supplying vendor ID, payment date, source account, and amount; optionally apply it to specific bills.
Create a bill payment (AP) in KikoBooks. Requires vendor ID, payment date, source account, and amount. Optionally apply to specific bills.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payment | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but says almost nothing beyond 'this creates a payment'. There is no mention of GL posting behavior, the AutoPost default of true that the schema hints at, required permissions, reversibility, or how a created payment is later voided. For a financial write operation this is a substantial disclosure 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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the required-field contract front-loaded before the optional application behavior. Every clause earns its place.
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 nested, multi-field AP mutation with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description covers only the required quartet plus applications. Defaults, posting semantics, and the remaining optional fields are left entirely to the schema, which is thin on meaning here.
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?
Top-level schema description coverage is 0% (the single 'payment' wrapper object is undocumented), so the description must compensate. It does map the four required fields to plain-English concepts and flags the Applications array as optional, but it says nothing about PaymentMethod, CurrencyCode defaults, CheckNumber, or the Memo/Notes fields.
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 and resource ('Create a bill payment (AP) in KikoBooks'), and the '(AP)' qualifier nudges it apart from the generic create_payment sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming create_payment or create_bill as the alternatives, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.
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 gives prerequisites ('Requires vendor ID, payment date, source account, and amount') and an optional flow ('apply to specific bills'), which implies when the tool is applicable. It never states when NOT to use it, nor routes to create_payment, create_bill, or void_bill_payment, so usage guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.