mark_order_paid

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

With no annotations available, the description must carry the disclosure burden. It reveals a key non-obvious behavior: 'does NOT verify with a payment provider', which is critical for a payment-recording tool. It also notes that this is a manual reconciliation step. However, it stops short of describing side effects, idempotency, reversibility, or return behavior, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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, purposeful clauses. The main purpose is front-loaded, the critical caveat (no provider verification) is placed immediately, and the usage condition is given at the end. No filler or repeated schema content is present.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate for basic invocation but leaves gaps. It does not state what effect marking the order paid has on order status, whether it can be reversed, or how it differs from the sibling record_order_payment. An agent would need to infer these from context, so completeness is only moderate.

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 75%, so the schema already documents amount, provider, and reference. The description restates that 'amount is in minor units', which duplicates the schema, and adds only the context that the payment is 'full'. It does not clarify orderId or reference beyond the schema, so no significant additional meaning is supplied.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Record a full payment for an order.' It adds behavioral differentiation with 'manual reconciliation - does NOT verify with a payment provider', which clearly sets it apart from any provider-verifying payment tool and suggests it is distinct from the sibling record_order_payment. The term 'full payment' further narrows scope.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Only call after the user confirms.' It also implies the tool is for manual reconciliation rather than automatic verification, giving an agent a clear sense of when it applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives like record_order_payment or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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