record_payment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The single phrase 'Record a payment' implies a write operation but doesn't disclose side effects such as whether the invoice balance is updated, whether overpayment is allowed, or whether the payment can be reversed. This lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it is quite sparse; while concise, it could have added a brief contextual note without becoming verbose, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

This tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is minimal and doesn't explain the effect on the invoice, preconditions, or what the tool returns. For its complexity, the description is under-specified and leaves key questions unanswered.

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 100% (all 5 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, and there are no enums or nested objects requiring extra explanation. A score of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Record a payment on an invoice.' This is specific and unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling invoice tools like update_invoice_status or create_credit_note by focusing on payment recording.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description doesn't mention when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist (e.g., invoice must be open), or when to prefer an alternative like update_invoice_status or create_credit_note. There is no implied context beyond the literal action.

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