Record contribution

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions an environment variable requirement, but omits key traits such as whether the tool is idempotent, what the response format is, or any side effects (e.g., receipts, membership updates). This is minimal for a write operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a critical prerequisite. No wasted words; every sentence adds 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?

Given 11 parameters (including a nested 'extra' object), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to explain return values, error handling, or the purpose of the 'extra' object, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 73%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific clarification. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and the description does not elevate this.

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 'Record a donation / contribution for a contact', which is a specific verb and resource. The name 'civicrm_record_contribution' aligns with this, and among sibling tools like civicrm_get_contributions (read) and civicrm_api4 (generic query), this tool is clearly the dedicated write operation for contributions.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use civicrm_api4 for custom contribution creation, or when to use civicrm_update_contact for contacts). Only a prerequisite 'Requires CIVICRM_ALLOW_WRITES=true' is given, which is a system constraint, not usage context.

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