Create a paid S3 storage order tied to billing by specifying a plan, location, and confirm=true, generating a real invoice for the requested cloud storage.
Create a paid S3 storage order linked to billing (s3/create_order). MONEY: creates a real order/invoice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to run the operation. | |
| plan_id | No | Plan ID | |
| location | No | Location |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Input schema / properties / location / descriptionPrevious value: -"Локация"New value: +"Location"Input schema / properties / plan_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"ID тарифного плана"New value: +"Plan ID"v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, open-world mutation. The description adds real context beyond them: this creates a genuine paid order/invoice with monetary consequences, which is the key behavioural fact an agent needs before calling it. It still omits irreversibility, idempotency, and duplicate-order behaviour.
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?
Two short front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the action, its billing linkage, and the money warning. The API path is the only marginally redundant element and it is tucked at the end.
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 three-parameter, fully-documented mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical risk (real invoice) but is silent on what a successful call produces, whether duplicate orders can be created, and what payment prerequisites apply. Adequate, but with clear 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 100%, so plan_id, location, and the required confirm flag are documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the qualifier 'paid' and no per-parameter detail, so the baseline of 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?
The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Create a paid S3 storage order') scoped to billing, and the API path (s3/create_order) removes ambiguity about which endpoint runs. It does not explicitly differentiate from near-neighbours such as order_server or s3_create_account, so the agent still has to infer that this is the S3-storage variant.
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?
There is no statement of when to choose this tool over siblings like order_server, s3_list_plans, or s3_create_account, and no preconditions beyond what the schema already enforces. The 'MONEY' note is a risk warning rather than usage guidance, so the agent gets no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.