record_payment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the side effects: it books and submits a Payment Entry and returns the new balance. It also surfaces conditional behavior (amount default, Zelle requiring transaction_number, confirm flag). It could go further on reversibility or confirmation semantics, but the core mutation is transparent.

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 pack the purpose, the default behavior, and a conditional requirement with no filler. The most important action is front-loaded and every clause adds information.

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?

Despite lacking annotations and an output schema, the description covers the main behavior, the return value, and the crucial parameter relationships. It leaves some ambiguity around what confirm=false does and which payment modes are available, but an agent can invoke the tool correctly in common cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the most important parameters: amount omitted means full outstanding, Zelle requires transaction_number, and confirm defaults to false. Sales invoice and allowed payment modes are left to inference, but the critical conditional meanings are explained.

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 names a specific action ('record a later payment'), a specific resource ('submitted, not-fully-paid Sales Invoice'), and the concrete effect ('books + submits a Payment Entry and returns the new balance'). This clearly separates it from generic document tools like frappe_create_document or frappe_update_document.

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 phrase 'against a submitted, not-fully-paid Sales Invoice' and 'later payment' give clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives, but the target condition is precise enough for an agent to route correctly.

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