ghl_payment_custom_provider_create_config

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'create' is consistent. It adds endpoint and OAuth scopes but does not disclose idempotency, error behavior, or side effects beyond basic mutation.

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 concise with three lines, front-loaded with the purpose. It efficiently includes endpoint and OAuth scopes, but could be slightly more structured or include a brief note on the config's content.

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 lacks information about the response format or what is returned. It covers the basic purpose and input, but omits details like the created config ID or any prerequisite steps, making it minimally viable.

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%, with all parameters described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond reiterating 'for given location'; it does not clarify the nested structure or relationships between parameters.

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 new provider config' and specifies it creates a payment config for a given location. The tool name includes 'config', distinguishing it from sibling 'ghl_payment_custom_provider_create', which likely creates the provider itself.

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 usage for creating a payment config for a specific location but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update or get config, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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