Create a payment link

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: amounts in centavos, type defaulting to 'single', optional MSI, expiry, customization, and the response containing the shareable URL. It does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or error scenarios, but the provided information is sufficient for safe invocation.

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?

The description is a single paragraph that efficiently packs essential information: purpose, usage hints, centavos note, amount modes, type default, optional fields, and response content. It is front-loaded with the purpose and maintains clarity without unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (17 parameters, nested objects), the description covers key operational context: centavos, amount modes, type default, and the response URL. While it could include examples or warn about missing required fields, it provides enough completeness for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the dual amount modes (fixed vs line_items) and the centavos requirement. It also highlights the type default and optional features. The schema already describes most parameters (88% coverage), so the description provides useful high-level context without redundancy.

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?

The description begins with a clear statement 'Create a new payment link' and provides specific example intents (e.g., 'create a link for $X for product Y'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like deonpay_create_checkout_session and deonpay_create_subscription by focusing on payment links rather than checkout sessions or subscriptions.

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 includes explicit user intents and explains the critical centavos requirement. It also clarifies the two ways to specify the amount (fixed amount or line_items). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like create_checkout_session or update_link.

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