charge_now_scheduled_charge

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: idempotency (not a re-charge), outcome 'already_sent' prevents double-billing, and the actions performed (email, webhook, timeline event). It also lists possible outcomes and reasons, providing complete 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 front-loaded with the main action and each sentence adds value. While it is dense, it is not overly verbose for the amount of information conveyed. A slight trim could improve conciseness, but it remains 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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values (outcome, reason, message), prerequisites (billable status), and side effects. It covers all necessary context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with a description for 'id'. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, hence baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool force-bills the current cycle immediately, using specific verbs ('force-bill') and resource ('current cycle'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like postpone_scheduled_charge and pause_scheduled_charge by highlighting its unique function of immediate billing.

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 explicitly states allowed statuses ('scheduled / due_today') and the requirement for an open cycle in recurring series. It also explains when it does nothing (if already dispatched) and that retries are safe. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools, but the conditions are clear.

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