ghl_invoice_record_payment

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the OAuth scope 'invoices.write', which provides authentication context. However, it does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., updating invoice balance) or response behavior beyond the annotation set.

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 contains redundant phrases like 'Record a manual payment for an invoice' and 'API to record manual payment for an invoice by invoice id,' which repeat the same information. The first sentence and endpoint/scopes are useful, but the repetition wastes space.

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 tool has nested objects and no output schema, but the description gives no indication of what happens after the payment is recorded (e.g., response, invoice balance update). It also does not explain the required sub-fields like altId, altType, etc., beyond schema descriptions. The context is incomplete for a complex mutation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it records a manual/offline payment against an invoice and explicitly differentiates from processing a live charge. This provides a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_invoice_create or ghl_invoice_void.

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 includes 'Does not process a live charge,' giving clear exclusion for when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for live charges, which are present among sibling tools. The guidance is clear but lacks alternative references.

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