order_payment_edit

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no safety-related disclosure. The description does reveal the return format ({success}) which is useful since no output schema exists, but it does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or edge cases. With annotations covering the basic mutation profile, a midpoint score is appropriate.

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 consists of two short sentences that efficiently convey purpose and return value. There is no redundancy or fluff, and the content is front-loaded with the action verb, 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?

Given that the input schema thoroughly documents all parameters and annotations are present, the description covers the core purpose and return value. It does not mention the site parameter or any behavioral nuances, but with complete schema coverage and a straightforward operation, the description is adequately complete for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly. Slightly reduced because it omits potential prerequisites or side effects.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 100% of parameters, so the schema already documents the meaning of each field. The description only repeats the field names without adding new semantic insight, meeting but not exceeding the baseline expected when schema coverage is high.

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 the specific verb 'Edit' with the resource 'order payment' and explicitly lists the editable fields (amount/status/paid_at), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like order_payment_create and order_payment_delete. The purpose is unambiguous and self-contained.

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 usage for existing payments but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It lacks any mention of exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., site requirement for multi-site API keys) or references to related sibling tools, so the usage context is only implied.

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