Transaction Events Create

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, so the write/isolation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond that: the required OAuth scope (write_payments), the API version, and the concrete HTTP route. It does not describe append-only semantics, duplicate-event behavior, or error modes, but the annotation baseline lowers the bar.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line statement of purpose, then compact metadata lines. Each line carries information (endpoint, scope, version) with no filler; the API version line is the least load-bearing but harmless.

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 mutation that takes an entirely free-form 'event' payload, the description gives no payload shape, no example, and no validation rules, and there is no output schema to compensate. It is complete about routing and permissions but materially incomplete about what must be sent.

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 nominally 100%, but the critical 'event' parameter is described only as 'Event fields per the API reference' with an unconstrained anyOf object/array and additionalProperties {}. The description adds nothing about what an event looks like, while order_id/transaction_id are already self-documenting. The single most important parameter is effectively undocumented in both places.

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 ('Add a lifecycle event to an existing transaction') and grounds it with the exact endpoint POST /orders/{order_id}/transactions/{transaction_id}/events. An agent can distinguish it from tiendanube_transactions_create and tiendanube_fulfillment_tracking_events_create, though it never explicitly names those neighbors.

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 verb 'Add ... to an existing transaction' implies the precondition that the transaction must already exist, and the required scope write_payments signals the permission gate. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as tiendanube_transactions_create.

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