Stream

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a manual marking/recording action, implying a mutation (changing payment status), but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the action is reversible, side effects (e.g., updating invoice status), or error conditions. The mention of 'payment_method' enums adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds context. The bullet point for 'payment_method' is efficient. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the enum list more seamlessly.

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?

Given the complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the tool's purpose and one parameter's semantics but lacks behavioral transparency, usage guidelines, and details for other parameters, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: it explains that 'payment_method' must be one of four specific values (CASH, BANK_TRANSFER, CARD, or QURRAH), which clarifies beyond the schema's string type. However, it doesn't explain 'payment_id' (the required parameter) or 'note', leaving gaps for 2 out of 3 parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Manually mark a payment as paid' and 'Record a payment received through manual methods.' This specifies the verb ('mark as paid'), resource ('payment'), and context ('manual methods'), distinguishing it from automated payment processing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'refund_payment' or 'get_payment' beyond the manual aspect.

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 description provides minimal guidance: it implies usage for manual payments but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., automated payment systems or other sibling tools like 'refund_payment'). No exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent with little context for decision-making.

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