Connect payment revenue

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description adds a meaningful behavioral constraint: it states that the tool never accepts or transmits webhook secrets. It also clarifies the output shape (three-step checklist and attribution edit), which is useful for an agent deciding whether the operation is safe and what to expect.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and includes only high-value details. The security invariant about webhook secrets is concise and 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: what action happens, how provider selection works, what output is returned, and an important security constraint. Minor gaps remain around unsupported-SDK handling, but the essential information for a correct call is present.

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 describes projectId but not provider, giving 50% coverage. The description adds slight clarity by implying provider is optional via 'or use the named provider,' but it does not explain the enum values or the role of projectId beyond what the schema already states.

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 specific verbs and a clear resource: detect a payment SDK, connect its Clarvivo webhook, and return a setup checklist. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_revenue or setup_analytics by making the connection/onboarding action explicit.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a supported payment SDK is detected or a provider is named. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as verify_revenue or setup_analytics, and there is no direct when-not-to-use guidance.

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