blinkit_pay_upi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that 'qr' returns a UPI link, 'collect' pushes a collect request, and polling is needed. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or error behavior, but for a payment initiation, the core behavior is transparent enough.

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 two sentences: first states the overall action, second details methods and polling. It is front-loaded, efficient, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description explains the initiation and polling but lacks details on return values (e.g., what 'collect' returns), failure modes, and security aspects. It is adequate but not fully complete for a 4-parameter tool.

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 covers 50% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining method values and the polling process (for 'wait'), compensating for low coverage. However, 'cart_id' receives no additional context beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action is to initiate UPI payment on a prepared order using Zomato zpaykit. It distinguishes two methods ('qr' and 'collect') and mentions polling, making it distinct from sibling tools like blinkit_payment_status.

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 used after a cart is prepared (via blinkit_prepare_order) and suggests polling status afterward. It explains when to use 'qr' vs 'collect' but does not explicitly exclude cases or compare to alternatives like blinkit_payment_status.

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