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

Beyond annotations, it discloses the effect on future confirmations, that lowering a limit does not affect already-confirmed orders, and that a limit of 0 means prepay only. It also establishes the audit expectation around the reason field. This is strong behavioral context for a non-read-only, non-destructive 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 core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the decision context and the most important edge cases. The narrative style is purposeful here and does not waste sentences.

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?

For a three-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety flags, the description supplies the missing operational context: when to use it, what changes, what does not change, and the meaning of special values.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics not present in the schema: a limit of 0 means prepay only, and lowering a limit tightens the gate for future orders without touching confirmed ones.

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 states a specific action and resource: changing the unpaid exposure/credit limit carried for a customer. It also explains the operational context, making clear this is the human override to the credit gate rather than a general customer update.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it: when o2c refuses to confirm an order, someone with authority should change the number here rather than route around the gate. It also gives the key exclusion, and the reason requirement is framed as part of the correct usage.

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