register_payment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait—'keeps reconciliation correct'—and warns against direct writes, which is valuable. However, it omits other behavioral details such as whether the payment is automatically posted, how partial payments are handled, or what side effects occur on the invoice. The description is not misleading but incomplete.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the action and includes a crucial warning. Every part adds value—no fluff or repetition. It is concise while conveying the essential information.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description should explain return behavior and parameter meanings. It only partially explains move_id and implies a successful registration, but does not state what is returned (e.g., payment ID) or any post-conditions. This is inadequate for a financial operation with 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints that move_id relates to 'a posted invoice/bill', but provides no meaning for amount, journal_id, payment_date, or payment_method_line_id. This leaves most parameters unexplained, making it hard for an agent to know what values to supply.

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+resource ('Register a payment against a posted invoice/bill') and distinguishes itself from direct write operations by warning 'never write account.payment directly'. This clearly identifies the tool's function and separates it from sibling tools like create_invoice or reconcile_lines.

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 explicitly instructs to use this tool via Odoo's standard account.payment.register wizard model and states 'never write account.payment directly', providing an explicit exclusion of an alternative approach. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus a direct write.

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