Create Payment Intent

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

Annotations already flag the tool as having external side effects (openWorldHint, destructiveHint). The description adds that the intent tracks the payment lifecycle, but does not disclose details like the two-step confirm flow or that the returned intent must be used later.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It immediately states the action and object, making it easy to scan.

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 is adequate for a basic understanding but incomplete for a payment tool with no output schema. It could mention that the returned intent must be confirmed or how it differs from a checkout session, leaving the agent to infer the next steps.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters with rich details (e.g., amount in centavos, minimum, allowed methods), so the tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the action ('Create'), the resource ('a PayMongo payment intent'), and its purpose ('tracks a payment through its lifecycle'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_checkout or create_source.

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 implies the use case (creating a payment intent) but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as create_checkout or create_payment, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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