stk_push

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It clearly warns that the tool does NOT confirm payment and returns an acknowledgement immediately, covering the most critical behavioral nuance for an async payment prompt.

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 sentences with high information density: first states the action, second clarifies the asynchronous behavior and directs alternatives. Every clause earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core selection criteria—what it does, what it returns, and when to choose a sibling. It doesn't detail error states or callback mechanics, but the acknowledgement/confirmation distinction is the most important missing context for an 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 already describes all 7 parameters with full coverage, and the description does not add additional field-level meaning beyond referring to the 'customer' and 'payment prompt'. This meets the baseline for schema-covered tools but adds no extra parameter context.

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 explicitly names the action ('Send'), the resource ('M-Pesa payment prompt (STK push)'), and the target ('to a customer'), making the primary function unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool stk_push_and_wait by clarifying it does not confirm payment.

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?

Provides clear context that this tool returns immediately without payment confirmation, and explicitly directs users to stk_push_and_wait when the outcome is needed. This effectively tells when to use this tool versus the key alternative.

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