Add payment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which align with the description's implication of a write operation. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as consequences of recording a payment, whether the client must exist, or implications of openWorldHint=true. The reference to Smart NPV is only in the schema, not the description.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that states the action and object immediately, with a useful parenthetical example. It has no fluff and every word earns its place.

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 there is no output schema and the tool has a complex nested 'params' object, the description is quite inadequate. It does not explain return values, required payment fields, or any caveats (e.g., client must exist, no duplicate payments). The agent is left without enough context to correctly invoke this tool in many scenarios.

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 provides descriptions for only one of two parameters ('params' as 'Object of fields passed to Smart NPV'), and 'uuid' has no description. The tool description does not clarify either parameter, nor does it mention what payment fields are expected, leaving significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 uses a specific verb 'Record' and clearly identifies the resource ('a payment on a client'), with examples 'retainer / installment' that add clarity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_payments and update_payment by implying a creation operation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The examples hint at use cases but do not mention update_payment or other options, leaving the agent without clear decision rules.

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