charge_invoice_external

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

With no annotations, the description provides the HTTP method (POST) and endpoint, and clarifies the amount format (cents). It does not disclose side effects, errors, or idempotency, but for a simple charge operation, the information is adequate.

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 very concise with three sentences. It leads with the core purpose, includes the HTTP method and endpoint, then provides critical parameter details. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: action, payment type, endpoint, and parameter format. However, it does not mention the return value or outcome of the operation, which could aid the agent in understanding the full context.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds valuable context by explicitly stating 'AMOUNT IN CENTS' with an example (5500 = $55.00), which clarifies the unit beyond the schema's generic description.

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's action ('Charge an invoice') and specifies the payment method ('offline payment (cash/check/wire)'). It also provides the API endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'charge_invoice' which likely handles 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 explicitly mentions offline payment, indicating the context of use. It does not list alternatives or when not to use, but the mention of 'offline payment' gives clear guidance when this tool is appropriate.

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