marketplace_record_payment

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the unfreeze side effect (not implied by destructiveHint=false), the durability requirement on the idempotency key, and the need for 'exact confirmation'. Note the description's idempotency emphasis sits in tension with idempotentHint=false, though the explicit key parameter makes it a benign distinction rather than a contradiction. It still does not say what happens on a failed/mismatched confirmation or what the response returns.

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?

Three short front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the consequences follow. Each sentence earns its place, though the second and third drift between side effects and input requirements rather than grouping them.

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 mutation tool with 11 parameters at 9% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin: the plan/apply mode distinction (the single most important invocation decision) is never explained, nor is the required-vs-optional status of confirmation. An agent has enough to know what the tool is for but not enough to call it correctly.

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 only 9% across 11 parameters, so the schema carries almost no semantics. The description mentions only the idempotency key and confirmation, leaving mode (plan vs apply), payment_sum, currency, and the payment_date/period_from/period_to temporal relationships unexplained. It also fails to flag that confirmation is optional in the schema despite being described as required.

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 pair ('record a successful external payment') and covers both operating modes ('Plan or record'), which is clear enough to separate it from siblings like refund_payment or get_payment_link. However, it never names an alternative tool, so the differentiation is inferred from the money-handling context rather than stated.

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 implies usage through 'Plan or record' and the side-effect note 'This can unfreeze an installation', so an agent can infer that this is the path to restore a frozen install. It gives no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to refund_payment or get_payment_link as alternatives.

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