wafle_checkout_order_mark_paid

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the 422 error for webhook-driven gateways and the semantic conditions (proof-of-deposit verified, cash collected at delivery). This helps the agent anticipate failure modes, which is valuable beyond the 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and follows with a clear exclusion. Every phrase adds value, including the parenthetical validation conditions and the alternative handling note. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 relatively simple state-transition tool, the description covers the who (manual operation), what (mark as paid), when (transfer/cash verified), and the key edge case (422 on webhook gateways). It lacks explicit success response details, but with no output schema and the tool's low complexity, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions (slug and proof_ref), but order_id lacks a description in the schema. The tool description does not add further clarification for order_id or explain how the parameters relate. Since the description doesn't compensate for the uncovered parameter and the coverage is moderate, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: manually flipping a transfer/cash order to paid. It distinguishes from sibling tools like refund or cancel by specifying the exact condition (transfer/cash) and the exclusions (webhook-driven gateways). The verb 'flip' plus the resource 'order' and state 'paid' make the purpose 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 explicitly says when this tool applies (transfer/cash orders with verified proof) and when it does not (webhook-driven gateways like mp/stripe, which are handled automatically via /webhooks/*). It provides a clear alternative path for excluded cases, though it does not name a specific sibling tool. This is stronger than implied usage.

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