sibs_mbway_payment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the customer-facing side effect of sending a notification to the MB WAY app, which is useful. It does not mention expected outcomes, failure modes, authorization state, or whether the payment remains pending, but the core initiation behavior is still visible.

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, purposeful sentences. It states the action first, then the key behavioral side effect and the phone format. There is no filler or redundant background.

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 schema is rich enough to cover all parameter meanings, and the description conveys the core action and notification behavior. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits any sense of the payment lifecycle, prerequisites like where transactionId comes from, or what the caller should expect in return.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the phone format example, but that same example already appears in the customerPhone property description, so the description provides no meaningful extra parameter semantics.

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 clearly states a specific action — 'Initiate MB WAY payment' — and adds a distinguishing behavioral detail: it sends a notification to the customer's MB WAY app. This separates it from siblings like sibs_payment_status, sibs_capture_payment, or sibs_refund_payment even without explicitly naming them.

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 the tool is used when initiating an MB WAY payment and when a customer needs to receive a notification for approval. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it differs from sibs_create_checkout or sibs_capture_payment.

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