isw_pay_vas_bill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behaviors. It indicates a write operation (payment) and requires confirm: true, implying a safety mechanism. However, it does not mention idempotency, reversibility, side effects, or what happens if confirm is false. Important risk information is missing.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no fluff. Every sentence is purposeful and 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 7 parameters (2 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not cover return values, explain extra or payableCode, or clarify payment behavior. A payment tool requires more context for safe and correct use.

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 43% (3 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by noting that amountNaira and amountKobo are mutually exclusive and that confirm must be true. However, it does not describe parameters like extra, payableCode, customerId, or transactionRef, leaving gaps.

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 'Pay a VAS bill,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like isw_pay_bill by specifying VAS, but does not explain what VAS stands for, leaving slight 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 provides some usage guidance: 'Provide amountNaira or amountKobo explicitly. Requires confirm: true.' This tells the agent which parameters to set and a requirement, but lacks context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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