set_order_payment_method

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint and idempotentHint, leaving the mutation's side effects unstated. The description fills that gap well by clarifying this is a 'bookkeeping label change' that 'does not move any money', which is exactly the risk an agent needs to know before altering payment data. It does not mention permissions or whether historical records are affected.

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 tight sentences that front-load the action and immediately bound its scope; every sentence earns its place. The trailing '[#588a7f]' artifact is stray noise that slightly detracts from an otherwise clean structure.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key concerns: the precondition, the narrow scope, and the absence of financial impact. Missing only peripheral detail such as permission requirements or error behavior when no payment exists.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the same payment method examples. The description reinforces the semantics of payment_method but adds no format, validation, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (change) and resource (recorded payment method on an order) and adds a precondition — the order must already have a payment recorded — which cleanly separates it from sibling tools like record_order_payment and mark_order_no_payment. The concrete example ("stripe" to "sales_channel") pins down the concept immediately.

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 precondition 'an order that already has a payment recorded' tells the agent when this tool is appropriate versus recording a new payment, and the follow-up sentence frames it as a correction scenario. It stops short of naming the alternative tools explicitly, so it falls just under the top band.

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