acedatacloud_setup_auto_recharge

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It hints at one-time use ('once') but does not explain security implications, idempotency, reversibility, or the flow after creation. It fails to mention that this likely creates a pending state requiring confirmation, nor does it state that the client secret is sensitive and must be handled carefully.

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, front-loading the primary action. It is not overly verbose and wastes no words. However, it could be structured to include more context without sacrificing brevity.

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 tool that appears to be a security-sensitive setup step in an auto-recharge flow, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value (output schema exists but is not referenced), the relationship to confirmation, or any prerequisites. The agent would not understand the full purpose or consequences of calling this tool.

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%, both parameters are well-described in the schema (config_id as UUID, confirm as a boolean that must be true). The description adds no extra meaning about parameters beyond the schema. Since coverage is high, this meets the baseline of 3.

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 the action (create card setup state) and that it discloses a client secret. It does not repeat the tool name verbatim. However, it lacks context about the auto-recharge domain, making it less distinct from related setup tools like acedatacloud_confirm_auto_recharge_setup.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not mention that this is a prerequisite step before confirmation, nor does it reference alternatives like acedatacloud_confirm_auto_recharge_setup. The agent is left without criteria for invocation.

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