Record an offline payment

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that it touches neither Stripe nor QuickBooks, amount defaults to quote total, and paidAt only for back-dated payments. This provides useful behavioral context beyond 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 four sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, then conditions and special behavior. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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 5 parameters all described, no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, prerequisites, and default behaviors. It could mention error handling or return value, but the core information for agent invocation is present.

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%. The description adds meaning by explaining the default amount behavior and the role of confirmed: true. It also clarifies paidAt usage. This adds value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 ('record') and resource ('out-of-band payment' and 'mark the job PAID'), lists concrete payment types (cash, check, ACH, wire), and states it is record-keeping only, not touching Stripe/QuickBooks. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like setell_create_invoice.

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 explicitly states valid job statuses ('only valid from INVOICED, SIGNED, or ACCEPTED') and a prerequisite ('Get an explicit yes, then call with confirmed: true'). It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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