editManualPayment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions using a specific endpoint but discloses no behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, destructiveness, or side effects. The edit operation implies mutation, but no details on reversibility or impact are given.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundancy. However, it could benefit from more structure to improve readability and scannability.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain return values, required permissions, or post-edit effects, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by listing example fields (amount, method) but does not clarify complex parameters like payment_method_details or payment_parts. Schema descriptions already cover parameter meaning.

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 edits a manual payment's details, specifying the verb (edit), resource (manual payment), and scope (details like amount, method). The name reinforces this, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'updatePayment' which likely handles other payment types.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'updatePayment' or 'deleteManualPayment'. The description does not specify context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on the name alone.

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