mark_order_as_paid

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It explains that a payment transaction is recorded for the outstanding amount but omits important side effects: whether it's reversible, if it can be called on an already-paid order, prerequisites for order status, or any failure modes. This is insufficient for a 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?

The description is only two sentences long, each earning its place: the first states the core action and mechanism, the second gives usage context. No fluff or repetition.

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 tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema), and the description explains the primary behavior and when to use it. However, the lack of annotations and missing behavioral caveats (e.g., idempotency, order status requirements) leave gaps that are especially relevant for a payment-affecting operation.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, and the schema description for 'id' ('Order ID to mark as paid') is clear. The tool description adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('Mark an order as paid') with a specific mechanism ('recording a payment transaction for the outstanding amount'). It also hints at the tool's niche ('manual payment methods'), which helps distinguish it from similar tools like capture_order_payment.

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 phrase 'Useful for manual payment methods' provides clear context on when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This is a minor gap given the crowded order-related sibling set.

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