Billing Plans Create

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

Annotations already disclose readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful operational context (POST /plans, write_plans scope, API version 2025-03) that the annotations do not, but it says nothing about what happens on duplicate plans or error behavior for a non-idempotent create.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the action, then HTTP path, scope and API version — no filler. It is terse to the point of being an API stub, but nothing is wasted.

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 non-idempotent create with a single completely opaque required body parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what a plan definition contains and what the response provides. It supplies solid operational metadata (endpoint, scope, version) but leaves the payload effectively undocumented.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is nominally 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the schema's 'plan' is an unconstrained anyOf object/array and the schema text just points to 'the Billing API reference'; the description adds no field names or shape details, so the agent learns nothing beyond what the schema already fails to say.

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 ('Create an app billing plan') and is clearly separable from siblings like tiendanube_billing_plans_update, tiendanube_billing_plans_delete and tiendanube_billing_charges_create. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource boundary is unambiguous.

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 gives a prerequisite (required scope write_plans) and the backing endpoint, which implies when the tool is callable, but it never states when to use this versus update/charge tools or what preconditions the plan requires.

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