mass_pay

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only operation, and the description adds little beyond stating that it creates a group invoice. It does not disclose that the operation affects money/billing, that confirm=true is required to execute, or what side effects occur on the underlying invoices. The 'ДЕНЬГИ.' fragment is an emphasis, not a behavioral explanation.

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 main clause is concise and front-loaded, and the parenthetical '(whmcs/mass_pay)' is informative. However, 'ДЕНЬГИ.' adds noise without earning its place in a formal tool description.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. But it lacks guidance on what happens after execution, the financial consequences, or how this relates to billing siblings, which is important for a money-related operation.

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 input schema already documents both parameters completely (100% coverage): invoices is an array of integers and confirm is a boolean with a description saying true is required to execute. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so 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 states a specific action and object: create a group invoice for paying multiple invoices at once ('Создать групповой инвойс для оплаты нескольких инвойсов разом'). It clearly differentiates this from read-only invoice tools and from creating a single invoice, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 phrase 'для оплаты нескольких инвойсов разом' gives clear context: use this when paying several invoices together. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly contrast it with related tools like create_addfunds_invoice or generate_due_invoice.

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