mass_pay

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

The annotations include destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description does not contradict annotations. However, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the 'ДЕНЬГИ' alarm, which is not informative. For a payment operation, the description should disclose that it initiates a financial transaction and likely requires confirmation, but the confirm parameter is in the schema. The description adds little value beyond annotations.

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 extremely short, but the 'ДЕНЬГИ' is a cryptic extra element that doesn't add clarity. It is arguably concise, but the all-caps 'ДЕНЬГИ' could be noise. The core information is front-loaded, but the lack of useful context makes it less effective.

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 payment operation with no output schema and only two parameters, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what will happen after execution (e.g., whether it creates an invoice, charges money, or just groups invoices). It also doesn't mention any side effects (e.g., emails sent to clients). The absence of output schema means the description should clarify expected outcomes, but it doesn't.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the format of invoice numbers or the meaning of the confirm flag beyond the schema's 'Must be true to run the operation.' Since coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 group invoice to pay multiple invoices at once (whmcs/mass_pay), which is a specific verb and resource. Although it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the sibling list is diverse and no direct alternative exists, so the purpose is clear enough.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as having outstanding invoices, or context about when group payment is appropriate. It also doesn't mention any exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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