create_payment

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only names the API version (v2). It says nothing about whether duplicates are rejected, what permissions are required, whether the created entity is immediately visible to list_payments, or what the response contains.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no waste and the resource is front-loaded, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient density. The "(Holded API v2)" parenthetical is the only content beyond the title.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum disambiguate the entity created and note mutation/auth behavior. Neither is present, leaving the agent dependent entirely on the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3: both parameters ("name", "days") are documented inline. The description adds no extra meaning, and notably does not resolve the conflict between "payment" in the description and "Payment method name" in the schema.

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 verb+resource is stated ("Create a new payment"), which is more than a tautology, but the term "payment" is ambiguous against the schema, which describes a payment *method* (required field is "Payment method name", plus "days until due"). No distinction is drawn from siblings like update_payment, list_payments, or list_payment_methods, so an agent cannot confidently tell which entity is being created.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or permission context, and no named alternative. With siblings including list_payment_methods, update_payment, and get_document_payments, the agent is left to guess whether this creates a payment record or a payment method.

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