Create a payment link

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious context the annotations cannot: the tool is refused under a live key, and the output is a hosted page at /l/<slug>. It omits slug-collision behavior and whether the returned link is retrievable 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the creation action, then the artifact model, then the key restriction. Zero filler for the amount of information conveyed.

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?

An 8-parameter creation tool with a nested object, no output schema, and half the parameters undocumented in the schema. The description does not say what is returned (presumably a link with slug and URL) nor explain the four boolean options, leaving an agent unable to configure or follow up on the call from the text alone.

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 coverage is only 50% and the description contributes no parameter meaning at all — it never mentions price, slug, quantity, metadata, or success_url. Four parameters (quantity, collect_name, allow_coupons, adjustable_quantity) are completely undocumented in both schema and description, so the description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('create a payment link') followed by a concrete definition of the artifact: a page at /l/<slug> that sells one price, shareable or openable with pay.js. That is materially clearer than the title alone. It stops short of distinguishing it from the nearby create_checkout_session / pay_links siblings, which occupy overlapping territory.

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?

'Share it anywhere, or open it with pay.js' implies the delivery modes, and 'Test keys only: refused with a live key' is a real usage constraint. But there is no guidance on when to pick this over create_checkout_session, nor on prerequisites like having an existing price id.

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