create_payment

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

Annotations supply only a title ('Create Payment'), so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It does not disclose permission requirements, whether it moves real money or triggers approval, whether the action is reversible, or how defaults (payment_date, payment_method_id) are resolved.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy; every word earns its place. It is efficient, though efficiency here comes at the cost of substance rather than being a strength of its own.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and annotations that only name the tool, the description is far too thin. It omits usage routing, side effects, and required permissions, so an agent cannot call it correctly with confidence.

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 each of the six parameters documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or default-override detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 new payment') plus a scope qualifier ('for a contract'), so the basic purpose is legible. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as create_off_cycle_payment, leaving the agent to infer which payment type applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative create_off_cycle_payment. The description merely asserts that the tool creates something, leaving all routing decisions to the agent.

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