order_payment_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, establishing that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write operation. The description adds the return shape {success, id}, which is valuable given no output schema, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like idempotency, permission requirements, or failure handling.

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 optimally concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no redundant phrasing. The return value is included in the second sentence, which is essential given the lack of an output schema. Every word earns its place.

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, combined with a fully-described schema, is nearly complete for safe invocation. It provides the purpose and return shape, which compensates for the missing output schema. However, it omits any mention of the order-linkage requirement (order_id vs. order_external_id) and multi-site variations, so it falls slightly short of being fully self-sufficient.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100%, the baseline is 3. The description only repeats parameter names (amount, type, status, paid_at) without adding new semantic detail. It does not clarify, for instance, whether order_id or order_external_id must be provided or the relationship between the two, leaving the schema to carry full parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Record') with a clear resource ('a payment against an order') and lists key attributes (amount, type, status, paid_at). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like order_payment_edit, order_payment_delete, and create_order by focusing on the payment-recording action.

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 tool is for adding payments to orders but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., order_payment_edit/delete). It also does not mention any prerequisites such as needing an order_id or order_external_id, leaving the choice of order identifier to be inferred from the schema.

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