isw_change_card_pin

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that plaintext PINs are encrypted locally and never sent, and requires confirm: true. However, it omits other critical behaviors like validation of old PIN, success/error outcomes, or reversibility.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and follow with behavioral constraints. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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 6 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too brief. It lacks information on preconditions (e.g., must have card, old PIN), error handling, or differentiation from reissue.

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 only 17% (only 'confirm' described). The description adds that PINs are encrypted locally, giving meaning to 'oldPin' and 'newPin'. But parameters 'cardPan', 'pan', and 'extra' remain unexplained.

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 verb 'change' and resource 'Card 360 card PIN', indicating a specific operation. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'isw_reissue_card_pin', but the encryption detail adds specificity.

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 like 'isw_reissue_card_pin'. The only hint is the requirement for 'confirm: true', but this is a constraint, not usage context.

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