Registrar pago o cobro

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description must carry the rest. It does add real behavior beyond the annotations: omitting importe pays all pending balance and transitions the invoice to 'paid', and writes must be enabled. It still doesn't say whether the action is reversible or how to undo it (e.g., cs_delete_payment).

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action comes first, then the default-amount rule, then the precondition. Slight redundancy between the description and the importe field description keeps it from a 5.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the action, the default-amount side effect and the write-access prerequisite. Missing only a note on return shape and how to reverse a payment, which are modest gaps.

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 75% and the schema itself documents fecha, importe and formaPagoId, including the default-all-pending semantics for importe. The description largely restates that default rather than adding new parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource pair ('Registra un pago ... o cobro ... en una factura') and clarifies that the same tool covers both received and issued invoices. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like cs_delete_payment or cs_list_payments, but the write action 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?

Provides a useful precondition ('Requiere escritura activada') and explains the default behavior when no amount is given, which implies when to omit importe. However, it names no alternatives (e.g., how this differs from listing or deleting payments) and gives no guidance on partial-payment scenarios.

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