isw_confirm_prepaid_sufficient

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the requirement of confirm=true, but does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, side effects, return values, error conditions, or any security implications. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, but it sacrifices substance. While it is front-loaded, it omits critical details, making it merely adequate but not well-structured for an agent.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about expected return values, prerequisites (e.g., cardPan must be a valid prepaid card), and error handling. The current description is too minimal for an agent to use confidently.

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 50% (3 of 6 params have descriptions). The description reiterates the 'confirm' requirement from the schema but adds no new insight into other parameters like 'extra', 'requestRef', or the precise meaning of 'amountKobo' and 'amountNaira' beyond what the schema already says. The tool's brief description fails to enhance understanding of parameter semantics.

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 tool's function: 'Confirm prepaid card sufficient balance.' The verb 'confirm' and resource 'prepaid card sufficient balance' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'isw_check_prepaid_balance' or 'isw_confirm_debit_sufficient', missing a chance to clarify uniqueness.

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 only mentions 'Requires confirm: true.' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., checking prepaid balance or confirming debit). No explanation of context or exclusions.

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