isw_reissue_card_pin

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

Discloses that the plaintext pin is encrypted locally and never sent, which is a key behavioral trait. However, no other behavioral details (e.g., side effects, authorization, rate limits) are provided, and there are no annotations to supplement.

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 (18 words) conveying purpose and key facts with no superfluous text. Exceptionally efficient.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits critical details like return value, parameter differentiation, and usage context. Insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 low (20%), and the description only hints at the 'pin' parameter via encryption info. The meanings of cardPan, pan, and extra are not clarified, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 (Reissue) and resource (Card 360 card PIN), but does not differentiate from the sibling tool isw_change_card_pin. It provides a specific verb+resource but lacks distinction.

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 vs alternatives. Only a requirement (confirm: true) is mentioned, but no context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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