payments_create

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses important behaviors: it mutates the invoice (amountPaid, balance), auto-transitions status, supports partial payments. This is good coverage for a create-type tool. Could add error conditions (overpayment) or reversibility, but the core side effects are well disclosed.

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, each carrying real information: purpose, side effects, capability. No filler or redundant restating of the schema. Efficient and front-loaded with the verb and object.

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 create tool with 8 params fully described in schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, mutation effects, and the partial-payment capability. It could mention what happens on overpayment or partial-vs-full distinction more explicitly, but overall it is reasonably complete for the stated complexity.

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 all 8 parameters are individually documented in the schema. The description adds context about partial-payment support and that paymentMethod defaults to bank_transfer, partially echoing the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't add much beyond it.

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?

Description clearly states the tool records a payment received for an invoice, and goes further to explain side effects: updates amountPaid and balance, and changes invoice status to partially_paid or paid. Distinguishes from siblings like payments_delete and invoices_bulk_mark_paid.

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?

Describes when to use (recording payments on invoices) and the behavior around partial payments and status transitions. Does not mention alternatives like invoices_bulk_mark_paid or payments_delete in explicit comparison terms, but the create-scoped context is fairly clear given the rich payment domain.

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