close_payment_cardPermanently close a Highnote payment card once an agent's workflow is complete. This action cannot be undone, so confirm the card ID before use.
Permanently close a card, e.g. when the agent's workflow is finished. Cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Required in the live environment. Without it the tool only describes what it would do. | |
| paymentCardId | Yes | Highnote payment card ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so destructiveness is known; the description reinforces it with 'Cannot be undone,' which is useful confirmation. It does not disclose the notable dry-run behavior of the confirm parameter (live-environment preview), although that is documented in the schema, nor what happens to balances or pending transactions on the card.
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 short sentences with zero waste; the core action and its irreversible nature are front-loaded before the usage example.
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?
Adequate for a two-parameter destructive tool: schema fully documents parameters and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for an irreversible workflow-ending operation, the description never states the close/suspend distinction or the consequences for the card's remaining funds and transactions.
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 100%, so both paymentCardId and the confirm dry-run semantics are already documented in structured data. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently close a card') plus the irreversibility qualifier, which implicitly separates it from the sibling suspend_payment_card. It does not name that sibling outright, so the differentiation requires the agent to infer it from 'permanently'.
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?
Provides one usage cue ('when the agent's workflow is finished') but no explicit when-not condition and no named alternative. The most likely confusion, close vs. suspend, is left for the agent to resolve from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.