create_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that the operation is create-only, but says nothing about idempotency, side effects, validation requirements, permissions, or what happens on duplicate records.

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 deliver the core purpose and the create-only constraint with zero wasted words. The key action is front-loaded.

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 9-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is too thin. It lacks guidance on how to identify the counterparty or bank ledger, what 'reference' means, and what the expected return or error behavior is.

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 only 44%, yet the description adds no parameter-level guidance. It does not explain the relationship between counterparty_id and counterparty_name, between bank_name and bank_ledger_id, or which fields are needed beyond the two required ones.

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 ('Record a payment voucher') and clarifies the direction of money flow ('money paid to vendor or expense'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_receipt. 'CREATE ONLY' further disambiguates it as an insert-only operation.

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?

'CREATE ONLY' implies it should not be used for updates, and the '(money paid to...)' parenthetical hints at the outbound-payment context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when to prefer create_receipt or invoice tools over this one.

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