record_order_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: amount is in minor units, capped at balance due, and can be partial. It doesn't mention mutation side effects, authorization requirements, or idempotency, which are relevant for a payment-recording mutation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraints; no filler or repetition.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, this description is thin. It omits side effects, error behavior, required-field expectations, and return value, so an agent lacks key information to call it safely.

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 50%; the description adds value for 'amount' (minor units, capped) but says nothing about orderId or provider semantics, leaving two parameters effectively undocumented. It also doesn't state which of the four parameters are needed despite none being marked 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 ('Record') and the resource/operation ('payment against an order's outstanding balance'). Calling out 'possibly partial' differentiates it from siblings like mark_order_paid and clarifies its role in the order payment lifecycle.

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 precondition ('Only call after the user confirms') and implies this is the tool for recording payments rather than marking the whole order paid or invoicing. However, it doesn't mention any alternatives or exclusion conditions relative to mark_order_paid/record_order_invoice.

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