isw_create_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, idempotency, destructive potential, or what happens if confirm is false. The note 'Requires confirm: true' is a constraint, not a behavioral trait. The tool is completely opaque beyond the basic action.

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 very short and front-loaded, wasting no words. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, which may hinder agent understanding. Still, it earns points for being concise.

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 including nested objects, no output schema, and a complex domain (card provisioning), the description is severely lacking. It does not explain important details like the meaning of 'extra', 'cardPan', or how amounts are used, leaving the agent unable to use the tool effectively.

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?

The description adds no meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides. With 50% schema coverage, the description does not compensate for the missing semantic details of 'extra', 'cardPan', or 'requestRef'. Only the 'confirm' parameter is mentioned, but as a requirement rather than its role.

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 ('provision') and resource ('a new Verve card'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other card operations like blocking, unblocking, or reissuing. The mention of 'through Card 360' provides context without ambiguity.

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 indicates that 'confirm: true' is required, but fails to provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as retry_card_creation or other card-related operations. No context on prerequisites or scenarios is given.

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