create_paymentcard

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that user interaction is required and that payment card info will be returned, but it contains internal contradictions: it says 'DO NOT generate or assume default values for required fields' yet later says 'reasonId - set 21 if not provided' and 'serviceDate - will be set today date by the mcp if not provided.' These contradictions mislead the agent about whether defaults are allowed. The description also lists some fields as optional while the schema marks them REQUIRED (e.g., favorite, singleUse), creating further confusion.

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 verbose and repetitive. It uses bold sections, emojis, and repeated REQUIRED warnings. The 'IMPORTANT' section restates the 'DO NOT' rules later, and the optional field list duplicates schema properties. While it has a clear sectioned structure, it could be significantly shortened to essential guidance without losing meaning.

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?

The description covers the overall process (ask user → collect info → create → return info), which is helpful given 15 parameters and no output schema. However, it lacks specifics on response format or error handling, and the contradictions (required vs optional, default generation) leave gaps in the agent's understanding of correct invocation. It is not as complete as needed for a tool with zero annotations.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already provides detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., amount in cents, currency allowed values). The description adds value by grouping parameters into required and optional lists and emphasizing user collection. However, it introduces contradictions about which fields are required, and it doesn't clarify parameter interactions beyond what the schema already states.

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 'Create a new payment card (payment link) using TropiPay API.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_external_beneficiary. The name and description align, and the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'NEVER create payment cards without first asking the user for required information' and lists the exact fields to collect (amount, currency, concept, description). It also includes a step-by-step process flow, clarifying when to ask for optional fields and when to create. This exceeds baseline guidance.

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