Create payment (draft)

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

Annotations only indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive, which is generic. The description adds critical behavioral details: payments are created as drafts requiring user approval, kid/message are mutually exclusive, and foreign payments need extra info. This fully informs the agent of the tool's behavior.

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 three concise sentences, each adding unique information. The first sentence states the purpose immediately, and subsequent sentences cover constraints. No fluff or 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: draft lifecycle, exclusivity rules, and foreign payment requirements. It could mention the return value (e.g., payment ID) but this is not a major gap.

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?

All 9 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the mutual exclusivity of kid and message, and the condition for foreignPaymentInfo. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool creates a new payment, notes it's a draft requiring approval, and highlights key constraints (kid/message mutual exclusivity, foreign payment info). This differentiates it from sibling tools like cancel_payment or list_payments.

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 provides context on when to use the tool (creating a payment) and important conditions (draft status, kid/message exclusivity, foreign payment requirement). However, it does not explicitly guide when not to use it or mention alternative tools for related operations.

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