payment_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior and outcome: a payment request is created and the buyer must open the returned payment_url to pay. It does not disclose authorization requirements, side effects, idempotency, or failure behavior, which would be valuable for a payment 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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the most important facts are front-loaded: the action, the API family, and the return value. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The return value is explained, which helps compensate for the missing output schema. However, there is no annotation coverage, no guidance on required authentication, no explanation of the `description` parameter, and no mention of how to follow up on the payment, so the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema already describes `amount` and `order_id`, and the description only repeats the `order_id` meaning. The required `description` parameter has no schema description and the tool description does not explain what should go in it, leaving an important parameter semantically unclear.

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 states a specific action ('Create a payment request') and identifies the official Payment API. It also explains the key output ('Returns a payment_url'), which clearly separates this from read-only payment tools like payment_query or money-moving tools like payment_transfer.

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 tool's context is implied: use it when you need to create a payment request that the buyer pays via the returned URL. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer it over payment_transfer or mention when not to use it, leaving routing to the agent's inference.

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