Create Yolfi Public Payment

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

Annotations already indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false), and side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'create', which is consistent. It does not elaborate on side effects, reversibility, or required permissions, so it adds little beyond the annotations.

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?

A single efficient sentence (14 words) that is front-loaded with the action. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 5 parameters (including nested metadata with no allowed structure explained), no output schema, and openWorldHint, the description is minimal. It informs the basic purpose and use cases but omits details about return values, metadata constraints, or the meaning of 'public payment invoice'.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not provide additional meaning for parameters beyond what the schema already includes (e.g., 'paylinkId' is described as existing, but details like format are in schema). No extra param-specific guidance is given.

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?

Clearly states it creates a public payment invoice from an existing paylink, with explicit use cases (checkout, testing, customer flow). The verb 'Create' and resource 'payment invoice' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from siblings like yolfi_payments_status (status check) and yolfi_paylinks_create (creates paylinks).

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?

Provides context for when to use (from an existing paylink for checkout/testing/customer flow) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No comparison to sibling tools is given, so the agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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