tiendanube_create_transaction_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether creating an event updates the transaction's status), required permissions, or any irreversible actions. As a mutation tool, more behavioral disclosure is needed.

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?

A single, clear sentence with key examples. No wasted words, but could incorporate more useful information without becoming verbose.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description lacks pre-conditions (e.g., transaction must exist), post-conditions, and relation to sibling tools. Examples partially compensate, but the agent may miss critical usage constraints.

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 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. The examples in parentheses (capture, refund, void) map to the 'type' enum, which is helpful, but no additional semantic guidance is given for optional fields like 'amount' or 'info'.

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?

Description clearly states 'Create a new event for an existing transaction' with examples of event types (capture, refund, void). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_transaction (which creates a new transaction) and get_order_transaction (which retrieves transactions).

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 implies usage requires an existing transaction by saying 'for an existing transaction', but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools like create_transaction or cancel_order. The list of event types provides some context, but guidance on appropriate selection among siblings is minimal.

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