delete_paymentDelete an unpaid payment to disable its payment link; paid payments cannot be deleted. Confirm first because this cannot be undone.
Delete a payment that is not paid, so its link can no longer be paid. A paid (SUCCEEDED) payment cannot be deleted. This cannot be undone: confirm with the user first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The payment id, as create_payment_link or list_payments returned it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description's added value is the precondition (only unpaid payments), the downstream effect on the payment link, and the explicit confirm-with-user instruction for an irreversible action. It does not mention permission requirements or what error surfaces if the payment is already paid, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the effect, then the precondition, then the irreversible-action warning. Nothing is redundant.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, consequence and safety guidance. Only the failure mode on an invalid or already-paid id is left implicit.
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?
Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the pattern and provenance ('as create_payment_link or list_payments returned it'). The description adds nothing about the id, but the schema already does the work, so baseline 3 is correct.
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?
Specific verb+resource (delete a payment) plus the exact effect (its link can no longer be paid). The precondition clause cleanly separates it from read-only siblings like get_payment and from create_payment_link.
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?
States a clear exclusion condition — a paid (SUCCEEDED) payment cannot be deleted — and instructs confirmation before use. It doesn't name an alternative tool for handling paid payments, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.