Remove Payment Method

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

Annotations already communicate that the operation is destructive and idempotent, so the description adds value beyond them by stating the business rule that at least one payment method must remain. This helps an agent understand a key behavioral limitation that is not present in the schema or annotations.

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 two short sentences with no filler: the core action comes first, followed immediately by the key constraint. Every word 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?

For a single-parameter destructive operation with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is nearly complete: it states the action and the main invariant. It could mention error behavior or effects on default payment methods, but those details are not necessary for making a correct minimal call.

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% and the only parameter, paymentMethodId, is already described in the schema as 'Payment method ID'. The description does not add additional detail about where the ID comes from or how it should be formatted, so it stays at the baseline for a well-covered schema.

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 action verb ('Remove') with a clear resource ('saved payment method'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools such as add_payment_method, list_payment_methods, and set_default_payment_method.

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 this tool is used when a saved payment method needs to be deleted, and it adds a useful constraint ('At least one payment method must remain on the account'). However, it does not explicitly describe when to prefer this over alternatives or what to do if the account has only one payment method.

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