order-mark-as-paid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation. It does not disclose side effects such as whether a transaction record is created, whether the customer is notified, whether the operation is reversible, or what permissions are required. It only implies a state change from the verb 'mark'.

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 sentences with zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded before the use-case hint.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and use case adequately. However, as an unannotated mutation it omits side effects and reversibility, which leaves a meaningful completeness gap.

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% and the single orderId parameter is documented with a concrete GID example, so the schema does the work. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (mark) and resource (order) plus the target state (paid), so an agent can tell this is a state transition rather than a generic update. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like order-close-open or update-order, which is the only gap.

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 second sentence gives a clear use-case context: manual/offline payments such as cash or bank deposit. That tells the agent when this tool is appropriate, though it names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g., versus refund-create or order-cancel).

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