create_payment_received

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'Create' and the resource; it does not mention permissions, idempotency, side effects, validation requirements, or what happens with the request body. The description is not misleading, but it is extremely thin.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it is so sparse that it borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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?

This is a create operation with an opaque nested body and no output schema, so the agent needs more context about required body fields, how payment received differs from similar entities, and what the effect or response is. The single sentence is materially incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter: the body is described as a request body passed through to Bigcapital. The tool description adds no additional field-level meaning, but with full coverage and only one parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and names a clear resource ('payment received record'), so the agent understands the basic action. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from closely related creation tools such as create_sale_receipt or create_bill_payment.

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 no guidance on when this tool should be used instead of alternatives like create_sale_receipt or update_payment_received, and it gives no context about prerequisites or typical usage. This is effectively a no-guidance description.

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