Mark order as paid

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open world). The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: it discloses the side effect that orders lacking a payment collection (e.g. converted drafts) will have one created for the outstanding amount. It does not mention required permissions or what amount is ultimately recorded.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the edge-case behavior. No filler, though the second sentence is dense and could be split for clarity.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core action, the trigger scenario, and the notable side effect. Return behavior and permission requirements are unstated, but annotations carry the safety profile and the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 single 'order' parameter is already documented as 'Order ID or order number'. The description adds no further syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: 'Records a manual payment ... for the order's unpaid payment collection', and the parenthetical examples (bank transfer, cash on delivery) pin down the exact scenario. It does not explicitly name the closest sibling, capture_payment, so an agent must infer the manual-vs-automatic distinction.

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 examples imply when this is appropriate (offline/manual settlement rather than a gateway capture), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative such as capture_payment or complete_order. Usage must be inferred from the examples.

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