myob_customer_payment_prepare_record

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does provide one useful signal—'High-risk approval required'—but it fails to explain whether the tool mutates data, what side effects occur, how approval is obtained, or how it interacts with commit/approve operations.

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 very short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. While 'High-risk approval required' adds value, critical details about the prepare process, required payment fields, and approval next steps are missing.

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?

The tool is complex (free-form json_body, approval workflow, related prepare/commit siblings), yet the description provides almost no contextual information. It fails to explain the required data, the approval flow, or what the output schema represents, making it inadequate for an agent to use safely.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter guidance. json_body is a free-form object with no documented structure, and business_id is unexplained. Since the description does not compensate for the missing schema coverage, the agent has no idea what content to put in json_body.

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 ('Prepare recording') and identifies the resource ('a customer payment'), distinguishing it from the sibling supplier payment tool. However, it doesn't clarify what 'prepare' means operationally—whether it stages a draft, requires a commit step, or creates immediately.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like raw_prepare_mutation, entity_prepare_create, or the equivalent supplier payment prepare tool. The phrase 'High-risk approval required' implies an approval workflow but doesn't explain how this tool fits into the prepare/commit/approval lifecycle.

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