myob_supplier_payment_prepare_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It adds a warning about high-risk approval, which is useful, but it fails to disclose whether this preparation has side effects, creates temporary data, or is idempotent. The meaning of 'prepare' in the context of the API is left ambiguous, leaving the agent uncertain about the operation's impact.

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 short sentences with no wasted words—'Prepare recording a supplier payment. High-risk approval required.' is front-loaded and direct. However, the brevity comes at the cost of essential details, but for the dimension of conciseness and structure, it is efficiently organized.

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 complexity of a supplier payment record with nested objects and no parameter documentation, this terse description leaves major gaps: the workflow (prepare → approve → commit), the required json_body structure, and the implications of 'high-risk' are all unexplained. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of operational context.

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 two parameters, including a complex json_body object with additionalProperties allowed, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description provides zero guidance on what fields json_body should contain or how business_id is used, so the agent must guess the structure from the schema alone, which is insufficient for a payment record.

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 uses a clear verb-resource structure ('Prepare recording a supplier payment') that identifies the target entity (supplier payment) and the action (prepare). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'myob_supplier_payment_list' and 'myob_customer_payment_prepare_record'. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'prepare' entails beyond recording, so it's clear but not fully specific.

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 'High-risk approval required' provides contextual guidance that the operation is not a simple read and likely requires an approval workflow, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like the commit_operation or other prepare tools. The usage is implied rather than stated, with no exclusions or named alternatives.

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