Record payment

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

Beyond the annotations, it explains important behavioral effects: no charge is made, no email is sent, the invoice must be submitted first, the amount is capped at the balance due, and clearing the balance marks the invoice paid. These details materially help an agent avoid misuse.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds constraints and side effects in a compact form. Every sentence contributes useful invocation guidance.

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 output schema, the description covers prerequisites, constraints, side effects, and non-effects. An agent has enough information to decide whether and how 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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds meaning for the undocumented enum parameters by listing valid payment methods and statuses. It also adds the balance-due constraint on amount, though it does not elaborate on every schema-documented parameter.

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 and resource: recording a received payment against an invoice. It clearly separates this from related operations by saying it only records money already received and does not charge or email anyone, which distinguishes it from payment processing or invoice-sending tools.

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?

It gives clear usage conditions: the payment must already be received, the invoice must be submitted, and the amount cannot exceed the balance due. It implies not to use it for charging or emailing, but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools such as list_payments for viewing payments.

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