Update invoice payment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the "manually recorded" scope note and says nothing about whether this is a partial update, which fields can be cleared, whether amount changes are allowed, or what side effects occur on the parent invoice.

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?

A single six-word sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded, which is structurally clean. However, this is brevity through omission rather than economy — the same length could have carried one clause about update semantics or editability limits.

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?

This is a destructive mutation on a financial record with seven parameters, 43% schema coverage and no output schema. For that complexity the description is inadequate: it does not state whether updates are partial, whether the tool can change the linked account or method, or what an agent should expect on success.

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 only 43%: id, amount and paymentDate are documented inline, but memo, exchangeRate, paymentMethod and paymentAccountId carry no meaning anywhere. The description does not compensate by explaining partial-update semantics (only id is required), the exchange-rate implication for foreign-currency payments, or how paymentAccountId relates to paymentMethod.

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?

"Change a manually recorded invoice payment" gives a specific verb (change), a specific resource (invoice payment), and a scope qualifier (manually recorded) that separates it from wave_record_invoice_payment and wave_delete_invoice_payment. It is clear but does not explicitly name a sibling as the alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as record/delete payment tools. The phrase "manually recorded" implicitly signals that processor-synced payments may not be editable, but the agent must infer that constraint rather than being told.

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