Payment Providers Create

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds genuinely new operational context: the required OAuth scope write_payments, the POST endpoint, and the API version. It does not mention duplicate-creation risk or error behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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, followed by endpoint, scope, and version. Every line carries distinct information with no repetition.

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 12-parameter create with nested objects, the description plus a fully documented schema and mutation annotations cover what an agent needs to invoke it. The one gap is that no output schema exists and the description says nothing about what is returned or what happens to an existing provider with the same name.

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 100% and each of the 12 fields (name, enabled, logo_urls, checkout_payment_options, etc.) is documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no field-level meaning or guidance on required-vs-optional semantics beyond what the schema 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?

"Register a payment provider" gives a specific verb (register/create) and resource, and the sibling set (payment_providers_list/get/update/delete) makes the create-vs-read-vs-modify split obvious. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the operation type 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?

Usage is only implied by the verb and the required scope write_payments; there is no statement of when to call this versus tiendanube_payment_providers_update, or whether a provider should exist first. The scope requirement gives a useful precondition but not routing guidance.

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