create_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a payment request' implies a write operation but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether this initiates an actual payment or just creates a request, what happens on failure, or any side effects. For a payment tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 at just three words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place in communicating the core 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?

Given this is a payment creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what the response contains, error conditions, or how this differs from sibling tools. For a financial operation with potential real-world consequences, more context is needed.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters with their types and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the 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 action ('Create') and resource ('payment request'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'create_adhoc' or 'refund_payment' that might also involve payment-related operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'create_adhoc', 'refund_payment', and 'update_subscription' available, there's no indication of when this specific payment creation tool is appropriate versus those other options.

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