agentpact.create_payment_intent

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds transparency by explaining that the tool generates on-chain payment instructions and requires a follow-up confirm_funding call. It does not contradict 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 two sentences, directly stating the action and the next step. No wasted words; front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 tool with 6 well-described parameters and no output schema, the description explains the payment workflow and prerequisite (accepted deal). It is nearly complete, though could mention error handling or prerequisites more explicitly.

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 all parameters described. The description adds workflow context but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. Per rule, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 creates a USDC payment intent to fund a milestone in an accepted deal. It uses specific verbs ('Create') and resource ('payment intent') and distinguishes from siblings like confirm_funding, which is called after.

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 specifies the context: when a deal is accepted and a milestone needs funding. It explicitly instructs to call agentpact.confirm_funding after sending the on-chain transaction. However, it does not mention situations to avoid, such as if the milestone is already funded.

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