charge_invoice

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions it's a POST request and charges an invoice, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., invoice status change, payment recording), error conditions, or idempotency. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise, front-loads the action and endpoint, and presents key details (cents, required fields, payment type guidance) without wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description is mostly adequate but lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., invoice must be unpaid), typical response, or error cases. It covers the basics but leaves some gaps.

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%, but the description adds value beyond schema: clarifies 'amount' is in cents with an example, explains paymentType options, and recommends thirdPartyPaymentProvider for card/online. This aids correct parameter usage.

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 the tool charges an invoice via card/online payment, specifies the POST endpoint, and distinguishes from siblings like charge_invoice_external by implying it's for internal payment types. The verb 'charge' and resource 'invoice' are unambiguous.

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 gives guidance on paymentType values (e.g., 'Use thirdPartyPaymentProvider for card/online') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like charge_invoice_external. Usage context is implied but not contrasted with siblings.

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