create_payment_method

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It says nothing about required permissions, whether a method name must be unique, what happens on duplicate/conflict, or what the response contains; only that `data` mirrors the external API v2 schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is created and immediately followed by the payload source and e-invoicing specifics. Nothing is redundant, though the reference to an external API schema is terse enough to be ambiguous about which fields are mandatory.

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 create tool with a free-form nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives the essential pointers but not enough to call it safely without consulting external docs. The unsupported `data` payload is the main remaining gap.

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 50%: company_id is self-documented, but `data` is an untyped object with additionalProperties {} and no shape at all. The description partially compensates by pointing to the Fatture in Cloud API v2 schema and naming key sub-fields (ei_payment_method, details: [{title, description}]), which is real added meaning but leaves most of the payload opaque.

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 ('Crea un metodo di pagamento') plus where it surfaces ('mostrato in fattura'), so the agent can tell it apart from create_payment_account/list_payment_methods. It does not explicitly distinguish payment method from payment account, which is the closest sibling, so it stays below a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: it names the invoice context and gives field-level guidance for electronic invoicing (ei_payment_method like MP05, details array). There is no statement of when to use this instead of create_payment_account or update_payment_method, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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