Suspend payment card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden alone; it does disclose the two most important traits — new authorizations are declined and the action is reversible. It says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, what happens to already-authorized or pending transactions, or the dry-run gating that the schema implies via 'confirm'.

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, zero filler, and the effect statement is front-loaded ahead of the reversibility note. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what changes, what the user-visible consequence is, and that it can be undone. Remaining gaps (permissions, treatment of in-flight authorizations) are secondary but real.

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/live-environment behavior are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('Temporarily suspend a card') plus the concrete effect ('new authorizations are declined'), which implicitly separates it from the permanent-close sibling. It stops short of naming close_payment_card explicitly, so the distinction must be inferred from the word 'Temporarily' and 'Reversible'.

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 adverb 'Temporarily' and the note that the action is reversible imply when to pick this over an irreversible close, but no alternative tool is named and no precondition is stated. An agent gets the general context but must infer the when-not case on its own.

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