Record confirmed operation payment

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds context the annotations cannot: no money movement, no coupon re-consumption, and the required PAYMENT_WRITE scope. It still says nothing about what happens on a conflicting duplicate external_id or what a successful call returns, which is the remaining gap for a write 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the scope limit, then the side-effect exclusions, then the permission requirement. No filler and nothing redundant.

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, nested-payload write with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side-effect boundary, idempotency context and authorization. A note on retry/duplicate semantics for external_id and the shape of a success response would close the remaining gap.

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 50%, with operation_id, external_id, amount and paid_at documented in the schema itself and method/currency left bare. The description reinforces the 'integral payment' constraint that the amount must equal the operation total, but adds no format, matching, or provenance guidance beyond the schema text.

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 and resource (record a payment on an operation) and immediately bounds the scope: the payment is already confirmed by an external provider. The negative clauses ('does not charge or capture money', 'does not consume coupons again') separate it from the redeem_* siblings in the same namespace.

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 precondition for use is explicit: the external provider must have already confirmed the payment. It also steers the agent away from redeem/quote tools by disclaiming charging and coupon consumption, though it never names a specific alternative or states what to do instead when the payment is not yet confirmed.

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