isw_link_card_to_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a mutation (linking) but does not explicitly state that it is a write or high-risk operation. The requirement for confirm hints at risk, but the description fails to elaborate on side effects, authorization needs, or the nature of the link.

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 sentence of 9 words. It is extremely concise and front-loaded with the action. No redundant or unnecessary information is present.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the outcome of linking, error conditions, or the typical workflow. For a tool with nested objects and multiple parameters, more context is needed to ensure correct invocation.

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% (3/6 parameters have descriptions). The tool name and description imply that 'cardPan' identifies the card, but details on 'extra', 'requestRef', 'amountKobo', and 'amountNaira' are not provided in the description. The description adds minimal context beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the missing param descriptions.

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: 'Link a Card 360 card to an account.' This is a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tools include many card-related operations, but none explicitly for linking a card to an account, so it is distinctive.

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 includes 'Requires confirm: true,' which gives a usage constraint, but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other card or account linking operations. No exclusions or when-not conditions are mentioned.

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