Create payment

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description must carry the behavioral burden for a money-movement write. It says nothing about irreversibility, whether the payment can be cancelled, idempotency, or required authorization, which are the traits an agent most needs before moving funds.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight information packing.

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 financial write tool with only readOnlyHint=false and no other annotations, the description is too thin: it omits preconditions, irreversibility, and any error/confirmation behavior. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the safety-relevant context is missing.

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 80%, so the schema already documents all five parameters (amount, reference, accountUid, categoryUid, destinationPayeeAccountUid). The description's 'existing payee' phrasing loosely maps to destinationPayeeAccountUid but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a payment') plus a constraint ('to an existing payee'), which distinguishes it from the sibling payee_create. It is clear but offers no further differentiation from other mutation siblings such as standing_orders_list or savings_goal_deposit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. the payee must already exist, funds must be available), and no mention of any confirmation or approval flow. The 'existing payee' phrase implies a precondition but never states it as usage guidance.

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