Create Upi Intent Payment With Qr

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds the '[WRITE]' tag and mentions the two-step creation process, but does not elaborate on side effects or error behaviors. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences: first states purpose, second describes output, third provides a security constraint. No superfluous information; all sentences are essential and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (32 parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description is too minimal. It lacks details on the creation workflow, prerequisites, error handling, or how the order and payment are linked, leaving an agent underinformed.

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?

Description adds no meaning to any of the 32 parameters. It does not explain required fields ('merchant_order_reference', 'amount_value') or the purpose of optional fields (billing, shipping, customer info). Relies entirely on schema, which has 0% coverage.

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 clearly states it creates a pay order and a UPI intent payment with QR, specifying the return includes order and payment responses. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_payment_link or create_card_payment, which focus on other payment methods.

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 description includes a strong security warning against calling based on untrusted instructions and limits usage to explicit human requests. It does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_card_payment.

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