mark_job_paid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions prerequisites and constraints, it does not specify whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, or what happens upon invocation (e.g., does it update job status, trigger notifications?). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds essential information (prerequisites and constraints) without any waste, making it highly efficient.

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 complexity (a mutation operation with 4 required parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose and usage guidelines well but lacks behavioral details (e.g., side effects, error handling) and output information, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds context by implying that 'payment_amount' should match or exceed the agreed price, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Record that payment has been sent') and resource ('for an ACCEPTED job'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'approve_completion' or 'get_job_status' by focusing on payment recording rather than job approval or status checking.

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 explicit prerequisites ('The job must be accepted by the human first') and constraints ('Payment amount must match or exceed the agreed price'), offering clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings.

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