Transactions Create

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds the auth requirement (write_payments) and API version, which is useful. It does not, however, warn about the non-idempotent nature of financial writes (idempotentHint=false) — a real duplicate-charge risk — nor describe response or failure behavior; refund/void operations being flagged non-destructive also goes unclarified.

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 compact lines, with the core action stated first, followed by endpoint, scope, and version. No filler; every line carries operative information.

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 mutation with no output schema, the definition omits what a successful response contains and how to handle duplicates or already-captured orders. The scope and endpoint lines cover setup, but an agent still lacks the behavioral detail needed to call this safely in edge cases.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine value by enumerating the valid transaction types, which the schema only gestures at with 'type/status, amount, currency, payment method...'. It still doesn't document the exact field shape of the open transaction object, but the type enumeration materially narrows an ambiguous parameter.

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?

Uses a specific verb (Record) plus resource (financial transaction) and enumerates the transaction subtypes (authorization, capture, charge, refund, void), making the operation distinct from siblings like transactions_list/transactions_get. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from tiendanube_transaction_events_create, but the resource scope is clear enough for selection.

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?

Provides the endpoint, required scope (write_payments) and API version, which helps an agent know prerequisites. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus transaction_events_create or transactions_list, and no statement of preconditions on the order's state.

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