Disable Payments

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, aligning with the description's 'Disables payments'. The description adds that it returns the modified object, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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 concise (4 sentences) and includes useful API reference (endpoint, category). The sentence about 'update an existing Payments' is slightly redundant but does not detract significantly.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return value ('returns the modified object on success'). It covers purpose, parameters, and endpoint. Missing guidance on error cases or side effects, but overall adequate for a simple destructive tool.

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%, with both parameters described. The description mentions required parameters but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, which is already sufficiently descriptive.

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 the tool disables payments for given project IDs. However, it also mentions 'update an existing Payments' which could cause minor confusion, as disabling is not typically an update. Overall, purpose is clear but not perfectly distinct.

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 says 'Use this to update an existing Payments' and lists required parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., enable_payments) or when not to use it. Usage context is implied but not detailed.

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