freshbooks_record_payment

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 reveals a critical safety feature: confirm must be true to execute, and without it, the tool returns a dry-run preview and makes no network call. This adds value beyond the schema's confirmation parameter description by explicitly stating the network call behavior. However, it does not mention side effects of actual execution, permissions, or error conditions, which are also important for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise: one sentence states the purpose, and the second explains the critical confirm behavior. Both are front-loaded and contain no fluff. 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?

For a mutable operation with 6 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It captures the core purpose and confirm gate, but omits return value, prerequisites (e.g., invoice exists), and potential failure modes. While the schema enriches parameter understanding, the overall behavioral context is incomplete for safer execution.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for 83% of parameters, including the nested amount object and confirm's behavior. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it does not need to compensate. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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's purpose with a specific verb 'Record' and resource 'payment against an invoice.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_payments/get_payment, which are read-only, and from create_invoice/update_invoice which deal with invoices rather than payments.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for recording payments on invoices. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, the sibling list contains mostly read/list operations and other create/update tools, so the intended use is unambiguous. The phrase 'against an invoice' helps differentiate from other payment-related tools.

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