hostodo_pay_invoice

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

The description transparently discloses that this is a 'PMF stub' that 'does not perform the requested action yet' and returns a 'structured coming_soon response'. It also warns not to send secrets. With no annotations, the description effectively conveys the tool's non-functional nature and security implications.

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 concise with two sentences, no redundant words. It communicates the key information: the action, the stub status, and a security warning. However, the structure could be improved by leading with the fact that it is a stub to avoid misleading the agent.

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 stub nature and lack of output schema, the description does not provide guidance on how the agent should proceed if payment is needed. It does not reference alternative tools or next steps, leaving the agent without a clear course of action.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the schema already provides meaning. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, such as usage hints or parameter relationships. Baseline score of 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 'Pay an invoice' as the primary action, but immediately clarifies it is a stub that does not perform the action. This dual message confuses the tool's actual purpose for an AI agent. It lacks specificity about what the tool does, making it unclear whether it should be used for payment.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'hostodo_get_invoice' or 'hostodo_apply_credit'. The description does not mention alternatives for actual payment or suggest appropriate contexts. The warning 'Do not send secrets' is useful but insufficient for usage decisions.

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