freeze_card

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

Without annotations, the description discloses reversibility and idempotency, which are core behavioral traits. However, it does not explain what freezing entails (e.g., effects on transactions), permissions needed, or side effects, leaving gaps.

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?

Extremely concise at two fragments, front-loaded with the key verb. While terse, it carries no redundancy. Could be improved with a proper sentence structure.

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 simple idempotent freeze with one parameter, the description provides minimal but sufficient context. However, it lacks information on outcomes, error conditions, or distinction from 'close_card', which a richer description could address.

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%, and the parameter 'card_id' has a basic description ('Card id returned by issue_card'). The tool description adds no extra information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 (freeze) and resource (card), with additional notes on reversibility and idempotency. It distinguishes from the sibling 'unfreeze_card' by naming the opposite operation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'close_card' or 'unfreeze_card'. The mention of reversibility implies a use case, but no exclusion criteria or context is provided.

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