create_payment_in

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source for behavioral disclosure. It adds only that the amount is in RUBLES, but omits details like required permissions, side effects of creation, or response format. The 'Create' verb implies mutation but nothing more.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no fluff. The Russian parenthetical is informative for a multilingual context and does not detract. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Despite a rich schema, the description is too thin for a 6-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema. It lacks usage context, behavioral expectations, and any mention of required fields or how hrefs are obtained (though the schema covers parameter origins).

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%, and the schema already provides detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., sum_rubles notes conversion to kopecks). The tool description's mention of 'Amount in RUBLES' is redundant with the schema and adds no new semantic meaning.

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 function: 'Create an incoming bank payment' with a specific resource type ('incoming bank payment') and action ('Create'). It distinguishes from siblings like create_payment_out and create_cash_in by specifying 'incoming' and 'bank'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_payment_out or create_cash_in. The description only states what it does without specifying context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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