isw_retry_card_creation

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral details. It hints at retrying a creation but does not explain idempotency, side effects (e.g., duplicate card if previous was actually successful), or response behavior. The lack of information on what happens during retry reduces transparency.

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 (two fragments), but it is concise with no redundant words. However, brevity comes at the cost of completeness, which is not true conciseness. It earns a baseline score for not being verbose but lacks sufficient structure.

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's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how to obtain the request reference from a previous creation, the meaning of the 'extra' object, or the purpose of amounts in a retry context. The tool requires much more context for 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?

The input schema has 6 parameters with 50% coverage. The description adds only the requirement for 'confirm', which is already described in the schema. No additional context is provided for 'cardPan', 'requestRef', 'amountKobo', 'amountNaira', or the 'extra' object, leaving significant meaning undocumented.

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 states 'Retry a Card 360 card creation request', which clearly identifies the verb (retry) and resource (card creation). However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'isw_create_card', which performs the initial creation, so it loses the sibling differentiation aspect.

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 notes 'Requires confirm: true', which is a parameter requirement rather than guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'isw_create_card'. No context is given for appropriate scenarios for retrying, nor what constitutes a valid prior request.

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