Prepare a Stripe CLI payment

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

Annotations already declare idempotency and non-destructiveness, yet the description adds material context: no money moves, separate authorization is required, the memo must be included, and duplicate payment must be avoided. This is exactly the safety-critical nuance annotations cannot express.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the gating precondition, then outputs, scope, and safety constraints. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried mid-paragraph.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, and it summarizes them anyway. Preconditions, scope limits, idempotency contract, and the post-call authorization step are all covered, leaving no gap for an agent to fill.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it names the three offerId values, constrains months to 1–12 calendar months, and explains requestId's role as an idempotency key to be reused verbatim on retry. It stops short of restating requestId's charset/length constraints, but the semantic intent is fully conveyed.

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 ('Prepare an owner-bound one-time payment order') plus the exact artifacts it returns (recipient, USD amount, unique memo). The explicit 'This tool sends no money' clause distinguishes it from any sibling that would execute a transaction, such as create_checkout.

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?

Gives a precise trigger ('after purchase intent, only when get_service_info pricing.paymentMethods.stripe_cli_pay.available is true'), an exclusion ('never annual subscriptions'), and retry/routing guidance ('Separately obtain authorization for the actual Stripe transfer'). An agent knows both when to call it and when not to.

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