ghl_record_invoice_payment

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose side effects such as marking the invoice as paid, whether the payment can be voided, or required permissions. The only hint is 'manual' which implies an override but adds little. This is a minimal, non-misleading but underinformative disclosure.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No word is wasted, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the effect on the invoice, the expected response, or any validation rules (e.g., cannot exceed invoice balance). This is insufficient for a mutation tool that records financial transactions.

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 25% (only 'amount' is described as being in cents). The tool description adds no parameter meaning, leaving invoiceId, paymentMethod, and notes semantically unexplained. The enum for paymentMethod provides some structure but does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 specifies the action ('Record'), the resource ('a manual payment'), and the target ('against an invoice'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ghl_void_invoice or ghl_send_invoice by the unique verb-resource pairing.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or hints about typical scenarios (e.g., 'use when a payment is received outside of automated processing'). The description only states the basic action.

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