go_live

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses that a real merchant account is created, that access tokens are returned, the progressive KYB thresholds (£1,500/£2,500), that individuals go live instantly while companies get an onboarding link, and that sandbox and production are both provisioned by default. It omits reversibility, auth prerequisites, and idempotency, which keeps it short of a 5 for an unannotated mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the operational mechanics, so an agent gets the gist in the first clause. It is dense but not padded, though the trailing SEO-style keyword list ('Stripe / Stripe Connect / Paddle alternative') is marketing rather than operational information.

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 9-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the important unknowns: what gets created, what comes back (access tokens), the sandbox/production default, and the KYB cap behavior that determines whether the caller needs to handle an onboarding-link flow. Remaining gaps are secondary mechanics like failure modes and what to do with the returned tokens.

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 78%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the two most consequential semantics — company_no presence triggers company vs individual treatment, and env defaults to both environments — but it does not add format or validation guidance beyond what the schema already declares.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Add payments to an app' and more precisely 'Creates a real merchant/payment account and returns access tokens'. The KYB/provisioning detail makes the operation concrete rather than vague, but it never distinguishes itself from the overlapping sibling add_payments, which sounds like it does something similar.

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?

Lists usage contexts ('accept payments, set up a merchant account, monetize an app') which implies when to reach for it, but gives no when-not conditions and no routing relative to add_payments, identify_business, or create_checkout. An agent with these siblings still has to guess which tool starts the flow.

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